Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Knicks Draft Josh Harrellson With Hornets Second Round Pick

Reports are coming in that the 45th overall pick, big man Josh Harrellson was purchased from the New Orleans Hornets. There isn’t much to say about him, NBADraft.Net didn’t have them in their full mock draft. Harrellson played one year in Kentucky, and his per minute stats showed him to be a strong rebounder, and efficient low-usage scorer, and a capable defender. However he sat on the bench for three seasons before finally getting a chance his senior season, so there’s obvious concern there as well. Harrellson’s pre-drat measurements (6-9.5 in shoes, 6-11.25 wingspan) are similar to Blake Griffin’s albeit without the latter’s explosive leaping ability.

190 comments on “Knicks Draft Josh Harrellson With Hornets Second Round Pick

  1. Frank

    Well after looking around a little ,ore, I think we can say he’s a pretty decent rebounder, but also- he doesn’t foul (3.4 per 40) and doesn’t turn the ball over (1.0 TO/40). Aggressive and tough- sounds like Amare’s enforcer to me, for the 4 min per game he’ll play.

  2. BigBlueAL

    I think its safe to say after drafting Shumpert Knicks had no interest in adding another guard in draft.

  3. New Guy

    Took the wrong big, then. I may be a sucker for upside but for a few mil I loved Jeremy tyler

  4. ess-dog

    This is about the least sexy pick possible, but he had a good year and tourney. Probably tougher than Vucevic and willing to do some dirty work.

    As for Shumpert, he ranked out ok in the recent Berri draft metric, but that chart only showed 6 legit players in this draft – with Faried being the only one available with this pick. And I guess we were destined to go guard with this one. Would’ve preferred D. Morris but they are pretty close. Am just going to live with it. Go Knicks.

  5. BigBlueAL

    New Guy:
    Took the wrong big, then.I may be a sucker for upside but for a few mil I loved Jeremy tyler

    Knicks paid 750 grand for Harrellson. No way in hell do you spend a few mil to buy a 2nd round pick, I think the limit in any transaction is 3 mil anyway.

  6. Frank

    Looks like Jereme Richmond and Justin Holiday are going to be undrafted. Let’s pick them up as UFAs.

  7. BigBlueAL

    JK47:
    We should have taken Chukwudiebere Maduabum, because– C’mon!Chukwudiebere Maduabum!!!

    The name says it all!!!!

  8. Jim Cavan

    Just got back to my hotel from the Draft after a rather amusing 5 mile cab ride. I flagged one down, got in, and the guy immediately asked if I’d been to the Draft. I said yes, that I was a Knick blogger. And he just went off about the pick. I was really worried he’d hit an embankment or something. I eventually talked him down, told him the kid has serious upside and guessed that a year from now we’d look back and feel more confident about it. I don’t know if I convinced him.

  9. BigBlueAL

    Jim Cavan:
    Just got back to my hotel from the Draft after a rather amusing 5 mile cab ride. I flagged one down, got in, and the guy immediately asked if I’d been to the Draft. I said yes, that I was a Knick blogger. And he just went off about the pick. I was really worried he’d hit an embankment or something. I eventually talked him down, told him the kid has serious upside and guessed that a year from now we’d look back and feel more confident about it. I don’t know if I convinced him.

    You got me convinced :-)

  10. rohank

    Jim Cavan:
    Just got back to my hotel from the Draft after a rather amusing 5 mile cab ride. I flagged one down, got in, and the guy immediately asked if I’d been to the Draft. I said yes, that I was a Knick blogger. And he just went off about the pick. I was really worried he’d hit an embankment or something. I eventually talked him down, told him the kid has serious upside and guessed that a year from now we’d look back and feel more confident about it. I don’t know if I convinced him.

    Who did he want us to draft?

  11. Jake S.

    I reserve judgement on Shumpert, but again it seems like the Knicks drafted someone they probably could have had later in the draft. For further examples, see Renaldo Balkman and Wilson Chandler (yes, I recognize that I’m cherry-picking examples from the Isiah Thomas era, but still).

  12. Jim Cavan

    @21 Singleton or Faried. He was particularly incensed about Faried actually. He basically said once the Nets open shop in Brooklyn, he was gone. Whatareyagonnado?

    I’m pretty shocked that Selby fell that far, and figured after the Harrellson pick maybe we’d buy one more and nab him. Wasn’t to be I guess. As for Shumpert, I can’t help but want to give Donnie the benefit of the doubt at least until the season starts. Like he joked immediately after the pick, he got booed when he drafted Reggie Miller. It’s only fitting he get booed on his way out too. At least he has a sense of humor about it.

  13. Count de Pennies

    I watch little to no college hoops in a given year so I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know jack shit about any of these players. Pretty much any info I have going into a given draft I glean from sites such as this one and reading the opinions of the select few people who take the time to actually watch teams like Morehead State play basketball.

    Based on all of those sources, I tuned into ESPN tonight having been convinced that (1) this was an exceptionally weak draft; and (2) the main claim to fame of whichever player the Knicks got at 17
    would likely be as the answer to a trivia question ten years hence.

    Simply put, I wasn’t expecting much. I certainly wasn’t expecting them to find another significant building block, let alone that “missing piece.” Best case scenario, I figured, was a role player who filled a need and would at least be competent enough to earn D’Antoni’s trust + around 10-12 minutes a night.

    Given the Knicks current logjam in the frontcourt, I’m not sure that Faried was that guy. But if Shumpert is really the lockdown perimeter defender he’s hyped to be and if his shot is at least good enough to knock down the occasional three a la Bowen, then he’s probably a better fit for this roster and will probably turn out to be that 10-12 mpg role player that I pretty much assumed we’d be getting going into tonight.

    But, again, what do I know? I’m just a guy what likes to watch da Knicks on da tee-vee. Which is what I plan to be doing next season, should the owners and players will it thus. I suppose I’ll just have to wait until then, until I’ve actually spent at least one minute watching the Shumpster play, before adding my voice to the already full-throated chorus of condemnation. Seeing as how pissing and moaning is one of the few reliable pleasures I can ever expect as a Knicks fan, I can hardly wait.

  14. massive

    From what I’ve seen of Harrellson (which isn’t much), he has pretty good rebounding instincts. Hopefully he can be some form of a poor man’s Kris Humphries? Usually, useful players in the 2nd round, are guys who are good at 1 or 2 things that contribute to winning. Defense, efficient scoring, rebounding, 3 point shooting, etc. I wouldn’t put it out of Harrellson’s reach that he becomes a good rebounder at this level.

    The Knicks took perimeter defense and rebounding in the draft to complement our abundance of scoring. Can’t be too mad at that.

  15. steveoh

    massive:
    From what I’ve seen of Harrellson (which isn’t much), he has pretty good rebounding instincts. Hopefully he can be some form of a poor man’s Kris Humphries?

    If he manages to become a poor man’s Kris Humphries, that’ll mean he’s shacking up with Khloe Kardashian, which therefore makes him Lamar Odom. Nice.

  16. Aharon

    @1 I actually would have edited it to “excpet for the skill of “being pretty good at playing basketball””.

  17. Brian Cronin

    I think it was far enough down in a weak draft that I’m willing to give the Knicks the benefit of the doubt. Until we see him play, of course. ;)

    That said, I am pleased that I was at a play instead of watching the draft live, if only because I would have been so excited at the prospect of Leonard falling to #17 that I would have been quite pissed when he was drafted.

    It is kind of crazy how much the Knicks seem to be relying on Jerome Jordan…

  18. Doug

    Aharon:
    @1 I actually would have edited it to “excpet for the skill of “being pretty good at playing basketball””.

    He probably has longer arms than Blake. That’s a start.

  19. slovene knick

    having ESPN America for two years now(if there was no Nhl and football(waay to much) on and just Hoops and MLB – that would be the best sport program ever)
    I saw nr. 55 play live on tv in two games/short spurts where he played really good …he looked like a raw man among raw boys.
    I think that he is physically ready to play in the NBA and his body is big enough for him hold ground/make some room, catch garbage and put it in.
    But Adolphus,Turiaf(btw what’s his status) and Harrellson are in my opinion no assurance that Amar’e and Williams’s are not going to play a lot/too much five.

  20. Frank

    Here’s a scouting report that is a little more hopeful re: Shumpert:

    http://www.hardwoodcanvas.com/nba-draft-prospect-profile-iman-shumpert/

    I’m not feeling too bad about this. He looks like a guy who will be (like Pelton wrote) at worst a Ronnie Brewer-type, or maybe even a Tony Allen-type, who have shown they can be very valuable rotation guys, especially on a team with other good scorers. Even if he never improves his shot, he should be a solid 25-30 min/game guy, if not more. His shoot%s stink, but the other things you see are:

    1) improvement in taking care of the ball over his 3 years – TO per poss from F-Soph-J years were 0.3–>0.27–>.14.

    2) major improvement in free throw shooting – bodes well for improvement as a shooter. 65–>72–>80% over his 3 years.

    3) stl to PF ratio of 1? that is ridiculous for a guy who was 2nd in the NCAA in steals per 40 (3.4!)

    4) likes to take the ball to the hoop – FT/FGA of 0.4

    5) 4th best Reb guard in the whole draft class, and 2nd best PG

    Overall it’s hard to say he’s a bad pick. There are legitimate concerns re: Faried and his ability to carry forward his rebounding dominance as well as what position he will defend in the pros (especially if he were on the NYK). We should remember that Millsap, who is probably Faried’s best comp, had an amazing TREB in college but has been not that special a rebounder in the pros – averaging less than 10 reb/40, down from 15.6 reb/40 in college. And Millsap came with a real offensive game, which Faried doesn’t have. I know THCJ always brings up Barkley and Rodman, but those guys are BY FAR the exception.

    I would’ve been happy with Singleton but I sort of agree that it would’ve been tough to get him enough minutes without committing Amare to the 5, which no one wants to do. And then who else was there to take, other than major big-man risky projects (Donatas) or other high-volume chuckers w/o the defensive chops (Brooks)?

  21. New Guy

    BigBlueAL: Knicks paid 750 grand for Harrellson.No way in hell do you spend a few mil to buy a 2nd round pick, I think the limit in any transaction is 3 mil anyway.

    Why not? Golden State paid $2mm for Tyler. I would’ve liked to have spent Dolan’s money there.

  22. Frank

    At the end of the day, we all wanted defense and rebounding, and hopefully size. There were no legitimate big men available at our pick (I mean center-size people that could play WITH Amare as the 4, not guys that would push Amare to the 5). So we got arguably the best backcourt defender in the draft, one of the best backcourt rebounders in the draft, and pretty clearly the best athlete available at the time. Other than his 3 point shooting (which dragged down all his efficiency numbers), his college numbers actually compare reasonably well to one Dwyane Wade. if he can even pull a Wilson Chandler (or Kyle Lowry, who was DX’s comp for him) and improve his 3 point percentage to the mid-30s, he could be great for us.

    Really wish we had spent some money in the 2nd round to pick up a legit big man prospect like Benson or Tyler though. I guess who knows – they saw both those guys and presumably watched all the tape they could. Benson sounds soft, and Tyler maybe was too big a project for them to work on.

    UDFAs I’d like to target: Ben Hansbrough (he can’t be worse than Rautins, can he?), Justin Holiday, and a big man project or two like Dunigan and Shermadini. There’s a D-League for a reason.

  23. Ted Nelson

    The draft red flags for me (besides each player’s skill red flags) are that the Knicks may have taken work-outs over games with Shumpert (based on them apparently asking him not to work out for other teams after working out for them) and they may have drafted for need (defense and rebounding).

    I’m lukewarm on the draft, though. I would have taken Faried like a lot of other commenters here. Besides Faried, though, I’m as happy with Shumpert as I think I wouldn’t have been with any player available… and maybe ever as happy with Faried who isn’t without his question marks. Can’t teach athleticism. If he can bring the ball up the court, run the break, get to the basket occasionally and finish well, maybe run the offense, maybe develop a 3… I think the guy can be a plus NBA player. His FT% improved at GTech to 80% by his Jr year, and that can be a precursor to jumper improvement. He actually hit 33% from 3 as a sophomore so his outside shot might actually be passable… Jr year was his lowest 3P% and it might not be a coincidence was also the year he took the most 3PA/min. His 2P% improved his Jr year, and NBA is made for penetrators and finishers so hopefully that’s a sign he can do that. At least combo-guard PG ability.

    I kept hoping the Knicks would buy a pick, so my girlfriend was confused when I wasn’t happy they bought Harrellson. I’m warming to the pick, though. I do remember wondering if Kanter had been cleared by the NCAA watching Kentucky only to realize it was Harrellson, so I guess my first impression was good. Don’t remember coming away too impressed after watching more, though. I don’t really have a problem with reaching big in the second round. None of the other bigs available were particularly more impressive that I know of.

    Like Frank, hope for Justin Holiday on the summer league team/training camp invite.

  24. Frank O.

    U know, I remember watching Harellson during the tournament and wondering “who is this guy?” because he was tough and imposing. Based on that alone, I find his selection intriguing. I think Shumpert also was a smart selection. I don’t really see him at point much. I see him almost exclusively at the deuce. The Knicks liked his shot a lot, not just because he was hot when he worked out for them. They found his form to be very good, which may be why his FT % improved, as Ted noted. But his merely physicality and size will be important for the Knicks. Tough as Toney has been, he is undersized and prone to injury, although he played thru a lot. I think now the Knicks could look to trade Toney and perhaps get a center project. Further, the Knicks perimeter d was terrible. This guy should help. The other guy this could affect is Fields. I’m not sure you give up on Fields. With Shumpert u now have two big guards with motor.

  25. itzallgud

    Hey guys. Long time reader here, but I don’t usually post. I have been a Knick fan for about 25 years but a UK fan longer. You guys are getting the right idea with the Brian Cardinal comparisons and the video of the Sullinger dodgeball. That clip on Sullinger is a pretty good snapshot of what you are getting with Harrellson.

    He has passion, he’s tough, doesn’t back down from anyone, and works his butt off. He outplayed Sullinger in that tourney game. If you want to dig deeper, look at some of the later games in the season(Or Louisville game), you will see that he actually did a lot of pick and roll and screens with Brandon Knight. And because we really needed his low post presence, he didn’t shoot much from outside. But he actually is a decent three pointer shooter for someone of his size. So I feel like that was an added bonus for him fitting in with the Knicks.

    He is not the stereotypical big white stiff at all. Like I said, the Brian Cardinal comparison is about the best I can think of. And we definitely need some of that on this Knicks team. I think if he can make the rotation, NY fans will love him. I am looking forward to seeing how he does.

  26. taggart4800

    Surely some element of foresight should be employed here, with the cap looking knicks friendly a Paul/Shumpert frontcourt would be a nightmare for other teams.
    Donnie alluded to the 2012 FA market in reference to the teams current make up and I do agree that we are in good shape.
    Even still a guy like Shumpert is going to increase the amount of easier transition buckets we get and he an TD will hound opposition frountcourts whilst Billups sits.
    I understand the arguments about his efficiency and playmaking ability but surely playing the defensive stopper role for the big three will have a huge benefit to his offense.
    I like.

  27. flossy

    itzallgud: He is not the stereotypical big white stiff at all. Like I said, the Brian Cardinal comparison is about the best I can think of.

    Uh…

  28. Grymm

    Pretty sure the summer league was already scrapped this year. It’s a shame really because I wanted to see how a season in Europe might have helped Jerome Jordan.

    I kind of like the Harrelson pick. Is he a rotation guy, no, but you need guys who can come in when needed and keep the Andrew Bynums of the league from standing under the basket. Teams need Chris Dudleys too.

    As for Shumpert, maybe he makes a decent pairing with TD being able to defend 2s while running the offense on the second unit.

  29. dmull

    I get the sense that the Shumpert pick was like the Jordan Hill pick. They thought some others would fall to them and when they didn’t they said, ah ish, what now? Hey this Shumpert kid is pretty long and athletic, I guess we should just take him.

    Harrelson is a guy I like. If they can get him into better shape maybe he’ll be a steal. But Cali couldn’t do that and as he currently stands there’s just no way he’s going to be able to play much in D’Antoni’s system.

    If we went Faried/Selby, I’d be giddy with excitement. I suppose I’ll defer to the experts here but myself (and many others) have been right more often than the Knicks over the past number of drafts, so don’t expect me to sip the kool-aid too hard here. Anyone who actually saw a few Ga Tech games knows what I’m talking about.

  30. itzallgud

    flossy: itzallgud: He is not the stereotypical big white stiff at all. Like I said, the Brian Cardinal comparison is about the best I can think of.

    Uh…

    Lol, I know I know. That’s borderline, I guess my idea of a big white stiff is someone that is completely useless. Cardinal just played meaningful minutes and won a championship with defense, big rebounds, and occasional big three. Wouldn’t you be happy with that from a 45th second round pick in a weak draft?

  31. New Guy

    Here’s to a 3 guard rotation of Paul, Fields, and Shumbert in 2012/13.

    dmull:
    I get the sense that the Shumpert pick was like the Jordan Hill pick. They thought some others would fall to them and when they didn’t they said, ah ish, what now? Hey this Shumpert kid is pretty long and athletic, I guess we should just take him.

    No way. They definitely targeted this guy. Not only that but someone they didn’t think would fall to them did (Singelton) and they stuck with their plan. It’s the complete opposite of Jordan Hill.

  32. dmull

    ^Not being too serious about it. They’re professional teams, I obviously think they have scouted any and every one. Just with Walsh saying that they wanted Leonard and my hatred of Shumpert is quite similar (but not as strong by any stretch) to my hatred of the Hill pick.

  33. Ted Nelson

    Frank O.,

    Good stuff.

    In terms of both Shumpert as a PG or SG and TD/LF/Shumpert (/Billups/Melo/Walker/Shawne/Rautins)… I don’t know if he’ll ever be a legit “true” PG… but I like that rotation (assuming they all play to their ability… only really a big assumption for Iman since the other two have been solid NBA players). TD has his strengths as an efficient, athletic combo-guard whose defense is a debatable level of good… but he has his weaknesses as a playmaker, which hurt when combined with his PG height. Fields has good height for a SG, is really efficient as a low-volume scorer, and obviously a beast on the boards… depending on how he develops, though, he’s got his weaknesses in terms of defense, creating, and scoring volume.

    *If* Iman is any good (a pretty big if… and may happen down the line more than immediately) I think he can play with either TD or Fields in the back-court. That fit is really a secondary concern to me, with the *if* being the primary concern. If he’s a Mardy Collins caliber total package (I know they have their differences, just overall contribution)… doesn’t matter who he can play with… cause he can’t play. You can get good players on the court together even if their skills overlap.
    Anyway, he can take PG pressure off TD while guarding guys who give him trouble. He can also guard the biggest perimeter threat 1-3 to take pressure off Fields (as well as Melo and Billups) while maybe running the point for stretches (run the break, or walk it up and give it to Melo…).

    So, if Iman is any good I like the Knicks’ guard rotation… though if good trade value can be had I’m also fine with trading someone.

  34. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    The problem with the “defensive specialist” thing is that the player has to diminish the opposing player’s efficiency to make up for his own inefficiency.

    That means that if a player, like Jared Jeffries, is, say, 20% less efficient than the average player on offense, it would be completely necessary for him to reduce his opposing player’s efficiency by 20% to be effective. That’s simply unfeasible. Few players are that good on defense. I’d rather have a player who is consistently efficient on offensive (or rebounding) than a player whose value “can’t be measured in the stat sheet.” Yes, Shumpert had a lot of steals, but will that attribute linger in his pro career? Not so sure that steal total, unlike rebounding, translates well to the pro game.

  35. John Kenney

    Regarding Harrelson: He and Brandon Knight ran a lot of two-man game in the NCAA tournament. Not just one pick and roll either- repeated weaving, with Harrelson continually making smart passes or taking the open shot. I am unabashedly optimistic about him.

  36. JK47

    Iman was not a very efficient college player. Offensive efficiency is very important.

    But he is quite good in a lot of other areas. Good handle, doesn’t turn the ball over a lot. Plus defender, gets lots of steals without committing fouls. Rebounds very well for a guard. Takes the ball to the rim, as evidenced by his strong FT/FGA numbers. Decent and improving FT shooter. Fluid and effective on the break.

    The knocks on him are that he’s not a good jump shooter and that he has terrible shot selection. Bad shot selection would seem to me to be one of the easiest things to fix in an NBA prospect, especially when you have two stars on your team who are extremely good at scoring the basketball. This ain’t Georgia Tech and Iman isn’t going to need to take a high volume of shots. Let him concentrate on playing intense perimeter D, getting lots of steals, taking the ball to the hole when he gets a chance and shooting the occasional open jumper and you might just have a player on your hands.

  37. dmull

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman:
    The problem with the “defensive specialist” thing is that the player has to diminish the opposing player’s efficiency to make up for his own inefficiency.

    That means that if a player, like Jared Jeffries, is, say, 20% less efficient than the average player on offense, it would be completely necessary for him to reduce his opposing player’s efficiency by 20% to be effective. That’s simply unfeasible. Few players are that good on defense. I’d rather have a player who is consistently efficient on offensive (or rebounding) than a player whose value “can’t be measured in the stat sheet.” Yes, Shumpert had a lot of steals, but will that attribute linger in his pro career? Not so sure that steal total, unlike rebounding, translates well to the pro game.

    Exactly, and if you watched Hewitt’s team in Ga Tech this year…they basically were awful and played ridiculously over-aggressive defense in an attempt to overcompensate for it. Yeah, he’s long and athletic and yeah he got steals but the NBA is a different beast.

  38. adrenaline98

    Hmm, I actually like Harrellson pick. It certainly isn’t glamorous, but he can fill a need, especially with how precarious the Jerome Jordan situation is. He seems like an active banger with good rebounding skills. He has an NBA body already and surprisingly, he’s pretty athletic. 32″ vert for a big white guy.

    He may get off the bench before Shumpert to start the season.

  39. Brian Cronin

    Yeah, Shumpert was definitely their pick for quite some time now. I mean, they hoped guys would slip to them or that they could trade up, but if things went the way that they expected, Shumpert was their guy.

  40. Ted Nelson

    taggart4800: I understand the arguments about his efficiency and playmaking ability but surely playing the defensive stopper role for the big three will have a huge benefit to his offense.
    I like.

    Plus I wonder if his efficiency might increase a little in a really reduced offensive role. He was inefficient even as a low-volume scorer as a frosh/soph, but may he can be average-ish efficiency in a few years just taking open 3s, transition buckets, and some driving/pick-and-roll.

    dmull: I get the sense that the Shumpert pick was like the Jordan Hill pick… Hey this Shumpert kid is pretty long and athletic, I guess we should just take him.

    The only real way that they’re similar is that other guys had been picked before them, which is what happens in the draft.

    In both cases the Knicks had literally been talking up the prospect they took to the press after literally having private work-outs… so acting like they weren’t high on both Hill and Shumpert is disingenuous.

    dmull: but myself (and many others) have been right more often than the Knicks over the past number of drafts, so don’t expect me to sip the kool-aid too hard here

    You knew a better player than Landry Fields available? You knew a significantly better player than Gallo? Since those guys haven’t actually existed yet, I sort of doubt it. Basically, you mean Lawson over Hill and Blair over TD… In both cases the Knicks may have done better, but their picks have been average NBA players to date… which is no small feat in the NBA draft. If you’re not sipping the Walsh kool-aid after 30 years of success, not sure what’ll do it for you.

  41. Ted Nelson

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: The problem with the “defensive specialist” thing is that the player has to diminish the opposing player’s efficiency to make up for his own inefficiency.

    Yeah… that’s sort of the point of defense: trying to diminish the other team’s efficiency.

    It’s a matter of degree as well as fit. Jared Jeffries is not only a mediocre defender himself, but also a mostly useless offensive player. He’s smart, so he’ll set a good screen or something occasionally, but mostly he just sucks.
    Bruce Bowen locked down on defense, at least hit 3s on offense while not getting in the way, and played on a team with enough offensive firepower elsewhere that he made sense.

    Those are just two examples. There are tons of examples of defensive specialists with varying degrees of offensive and defensive aptitude. No one is suggesting that they hope Shumpert is awful offensively. We all hope he can at least not be a drag on the offense by playing well in transition, hitting the occasional open shot, working on other aspects of his game to make them strengths, and otherwise not trying to do things he can’t do.

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: I’d rather have a player who is consistently efficient on offensive (or rebounding) than a player whose value “can’t be measured in the stat sheet.”

    This is where you lose reality… his impact absolutely is measured on the stat-sheet. He’s a RSB-beast for a guard.

  42. Ted Nelson

    dmull: Exactly, and if you watched Hewitt’s team in Ga Tech this year…they basically were awful and played ridiculously over-aggressive defense in an attempt to overcompensate for it.

    Question: which best describes Iman Shumpert A. a basketball coach, B. a basketball team, or C. a basketball player?

    I would take C., so I wouldn’t worry too much about GTech’s team success or overall strategy. Role and team success are two of the biggest confounding factors when looking at prospects.

  43. adrenaline98

    Shumpert went from 10 fga/40 to 17 fga/40 on an awful team, where the headcoach was canned, and no other NBA talent once Favors was gone last year.

    He went more from a playmaking role to a scoring role. He went from 6.5 assists/40 to 4, on an awful team, with no other options. So he has played the playmaking role before for a bigger star.

    Like I said, he won’t be taking 17 shots/40. He probably also hesitated on driving to the basket with no options other than himself. He won’t have that issue here. But he will have to learn how not to be that #1 option again. His defensive prowess in college + his athletic abilities show that he can be a solid lockdown defender at 6’6 on the 1 and 2 positions. And he finished his junior year with 7.6 reb/40. I just think he fills a need on the Knicks as well, so I don’t really get the hate. The Knicks have awful interior defense and Faried wouldn’t fix that. The Knicks also have awful exterior defense, and Shumpert may fix that. Like I said in the other post, it came to perimeter D vs rebounding, and the FO must have felt the positions Faried would/could play in the NBA are being duplicated right now by Amare and Melo for the next 4 years. If Shumpert can prove to be a decent distributor and defender, knocking down an open 3, he could be extremely valuable as they look for that 5 that does what Faried does.

  44. adrenaline98

    So next year:
    Starting 5:
    Chauncey
    Fields
    Melo
    Amare
    Turiaf?/Harrellson (ala Mozgov’s role?)/Jordan (will he even be here yet?)

    Bench:
    Extra E? UFA
    TD – backup combo guard
    Shumpert – backup PG, maybe play some important defensive moments for Fields/Chauncey
    Balkman (ugh)
    Walker – 3pt spark off bench
    Rautins – Cheerleader

    There’s still 2 spots available assuming no one gets signed. Guess now we wait on Fisher, Hunter, and the owners.

  45. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    adrenaline98:
    Shumpert went from 10 fga/40 to 17 fga/40 on an awful team, where the headcoach was canned, and no other NBA talent once Favors was gone last year.

    Yeah, and he improved his TS% from a whopping .489 to an astouding .512. Anyone who thinks this guy can play for a playoff-level team is out of their minds.

  46. Frank

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman:
    Few players are that good on defense. I’d rather have a player who is consistently efficient on offensive (or rebounding) than a player whose value “can’t be measured in the stat sheet.” Yes, Shumpert had a lot of steals, but will that attribute linger in his pro career? Not so sure that steal total, unlike rebounding, translates well to the pro game.

    Are you not sure because there’s actually a reason to think it won’t, or just because it doesn’t fit in your basketball worldview? Guys who have great anticipation, quick hands, quick feet, and long arms are going to get a lot of steals. Just like guys who have great anticipation, good hands, quick feet, and long arms are going to get their fair share of rebounds.

    Meanwhile, show me a stat that really defines defensive efficiency, and my guess is that guys whose value “can’t be measured in the stat sheet” – like Bruce Bowen, Shane Battier, etc.- would do quite well there. It’s not their fault that good defensive stats don’t exist.

    My feeling about Shumpert is that given his athleticism and willingness to play D, his floor will be someone like Ronnie Brewer (who is quite good). A good outcome would be someone like Tony Allen (who is really good). A great outcome is if he becomes a poor man’s Dwyane Wade – because again – if you discount the # of 3’s he took, his numbers look very much like Dwyane Wade. Let him sit in a gym with Phil Weber and work on his shot (for as long as this stupid labor situation allows), let Melo/Amare do the necessary “shot creating”, and hopefully his efficiency gets a lot better.

    Meanwhile – I’d love to see Rondo try to own Shumpert in the same way he toyed with TD last year. My guess is 6’6″ 220 and 7′ wingspan are harder to push around than 6’1″ 180 and 6’6″ wingspan.

  47. Count de Pennies

    As I’ve already said, I don’t know a thing about our first round pick. But with the 17th selection in what had been universally described as a “weak draft,” I sure wasn’t expecting a “home run.”

    If the Knicks were really, really lucky, I figured the best they could hope for was a “double” (i.e. solid NBA starter who addresses a couple of glaring deficiencies). But I’m sure Walsh & Co. would be more than satisfied if the pick turns out to be nothing more than a “single” (i.e. competent role player good for 10-15 mins/gm). Yet given the circumstances of this draft and the position at which the Knicks were selecting, I’m betting that all involved understand that the most likely outcome is “weak grounder to short” (i.e. rarely gets off the bench and out of the league in a few years)

    If this had been a top-5, or even a top-10, pick, I would be a bit more understanding of some of the angst being expressed around here. I suppose if the undersized kid who put up dominating rebounding numbers in a backwater conference goes on to become anything more than an average NBA payer, then I suppose some “told you so’s” will be in order. But until then, I’m just not seeing the selection of Shumpert as some gigantic missed opportunity.

    I will add, however, that I do have a real problem with the name… seeing as how it suggests a connection with one of the most despicable New Yorkers of the past generation. In response to the question of “Who is Shumpert?” the troubling response, anagramatically speaking, is:

    “He’s Trump.”

  48. Frank

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: Yeah, and he improved his TS% from a whopping .489 to an astouding .512. Anyone who thinks this guy can play for a playoff-level team is out of their minds.

    Are we as out of our minds as a guy who thinks Nick Fazekas was the best player in the 2007 NBA draft? Or that Stephane Lasme was a diamond in the rough? Or the amazingly awesome Rashad-Jones Jennings? I mean, do you seriously realize that if Berri was the GM of the Blazers, he would have picked Nick Fazekas in 2007?

    Look – you’re right in one way about Shumpert. If he takes 17 shots per game with a TS of 51, then we will not be a serious playoff contender, because that likely means at least 2 of Amare/Melo/Billups are hurt. If he shoots 8 shots a game at a TS of 51, and locks down the other team’s best perimeter scorer, then we’ll probably be just fine. If he shoots 8 shots at a game at a TS of 55 because he’s letting Melo do the late-shot-clock-shot-creating, and locks down the other team’s best perimeter scorer, then we’ll be really fine.

  49. Frank

    Even though I’m optimistic but not super-sold on Shumpert, it’s worth a look at this line he put up against what was a pretty good VaTech team this past year (22-12, 9-7 in ACC)

    22 pts, 12 rebounds, 11 assists, 7 steals, 1 turnover on 7-15 shooting. There are very few guards in the country that are even physically capable of putting up this kind of line against a good ACC team. It’s one game but still — nearly a quadruple-double.

  50. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Why are you bashing Nick Fazekas? In 269 minutes of NBA time, he posted:

    19.6 PER
    .584 TS%
    .148 WS/48
    14/5 ORB%

    All as a 22 year old rookie. And for some reason, he’s banished to the NBDL and no one will take a stab at him for some reason. Not “athletic” enough, I’m sure, but the stats say that it is YOU, not Dave Berri, who looks like the loser of that argument.

    What your usage argument fails to consider is that there was a player on the board who is a low-usage, high-efficiency player. His name is Kenneth Faried, and the Knicks passed on him because they didn’t think he’d be able to

    Does anyone else see that choosing a high-efficiency player hoping that he continues that play on the next level is overwhelmingly more intelligent than choosing a low-efficiency player in the hope that he becomes productive?

    This is akin to choosing a girlfriend with a history of cheating because she “probably won’t do it again” instead of the faithful woman because “Who knows, she might not be as good to me as she was to others in the past.” It makes no sense. Go with precedent, not blind speculation and faith.

  51. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    *be able to continue that level of productivity on the next level.

  52. Ted Nelson

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: Yeah, and he improved his TS% from a whopping .489 to an astouding .512. Anyone who thinks this guy can play for a playoff-level team is out of their minds.

    Anyone who thinks they can predict exactly how a player’s career will go the day after he’s drafted with any accuracy is out of their mind. Give it a rest.

    Frank: his floor will be someone like Ronnie Brewer (who is quite good). A good outcome would be someone like Tony Allen (who is really good).

    Tony Allen had one really good season… I think you’re overrating him (career 14.4 PER and .107 WS/48… 30 next season season) and underrating Brewer (career 15.4 PER and .138 WS/48… 26 next season). Brewer’s 22 year old season was just as good as Allen’s career 29 year old season.

    Count de Pennies: But I’m sure Walsh & Co. would be more than satisfied if the pick turns out to be nothing more than a “single” (i.e. competent role player good for 10-15 mins/gm)

    I sort of doubt it… They were just taking the best pick they could. If he’s only playing 10-15 MPG or not getting off the bench… it didn’t work out. Jared Jeffries played 20 MPG for the Knicks. You’re jumping to conclusions about the quality of this draft way too early. It doesn’t look good, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically awful.

  53. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Doug: Everything you say is so dramatic and flamboyant. It makes me want to… set myself on fire!

    Okay, Lucille. Seriously though, it’s about likelihood. I’m not saying that Faried is going to be the next Rodman. I’m saying that his stats suggest that he very well could be. It’s far less likely that Selby reaches this “ceiling” of his than for Faried to become the NBA starter his stats project him to be.

  54. Doug

    Who will console the widow Fazekas? If all 30 NBA teams looked at him and went “DO NOT WANT” then it’s probably not an adherence to conventional wisdom that is keeping him out of the league.

    My guess is that he is a failure of epic proportions on defense.

  55. JK47

    On the one hand, I agree with Jowles. I’d rather have the guy who’s proven to be very good at basketball over the guy who has a high standing vertical leap or the guy who “reminds me of Russell Westbrook.”

    That said, stats don’t accumulate in a vacuum, and though it’s tempting to want Kenneth Faried because the Knicks are a bad rebounding team, it’s hard to see how exactly Faried would have fit in here. How does he get 30+ minutes a game? He doesn’t, unless you want a 6’6″ guy attempting to guard NBA centers or unless you’re willing to watch a lot of painful minutes of Amar’e Stoudemire attempting to guard NBA centers. We’d grab more rebounds, but Amar’e would have to take a lot more pounding and my guess is that our interior defense would continue to be pretty goddamned awful. Would it be worth the extra rebounding? I kind of doubt it.

    What we really need is a true C who can get rebounds and allow Amar’e to play the four. Easier said than done I know, but Faried would have been a bit of a square peg in a round hole I think.

  56. latke

    Frank: My feeling about Shumpert is that given his athleticism and willingness to play D, his floor will be someone like Ronnie Brewer (who is quite good). A good outcome would be someone like Tony Allen (who is really good).

    Brewer was solid from the getgo. However, Allen has been in the league 7 years and this was the first where he emerged as above average. The problem has always been his decision making — he lowered his tov% and raised his TS% and that was enough to change him from a 15mpg defensive specialist into an impact player.

    There are worse comparisons one could make: Corey Brewer, for example, despite the fact that people here obsess over us waiving him, four seasons in is still not really a rotation level player on a good team. He still takes too many bad shots. He still can’t shoot. Jamario Moon, Rodney Carney and Joe Alexander are all superb athletes who aren’t good NBA players. I’m not saying shumpert will be Carney or that he’ll be Luc Richard Mbah A Moute… just that he’s far from a sure thing.

  57. Count de Pennies

    Ted Nelson: Count de Pennies: But I’m sure Walsh & Co. would be more than satisfied if the pick turns out to be nothing more than a “single” (i.e. competent role player good for 10-15 mins/gm)

    I sort of doubt it… They were just taking the best pick they could. If he’s only playing 10-15 MPG or not getting off the bench… it didn’t work out. Jared Jeffries played 20 MPG for the Knicks. You’re jumping to conclusions about the quality of this draft way too early. It doesn’t look good, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically awful.

    I’m not jumping to any conclusions. I’ve already owned up to my cavernous ignorance of college payers and, by extension, the draft.

    Any knowledge I have of the players in this draft at this point is based on other people’s opinions – people whom I assume to be more knowledgeable than I on the subject. And the overwhelming consensus there appears to be that this was a very weak draft class and likely not 17 players deep.

    So that was the premise upon which my earlier post was based. I am aware that that premise could well be flawed, that only time will tell, blah blah blah. But if that premise is true or – more to the point – if Walsh and the Knick braintrust believed it to be true, then I don’t think it’s a stretch to say they would be OK with the outcome should the pick turn out to be little more than a “single.”

  58. Frank

    @TFCCJN1G, previously THCJ –

    I love that you are so dedicated to Fazekas. Let’s actually try to figure out which of these two possibilities is more likely:

    1) Fazekas was better in college than Kevin Durant, and if just given the minutes! to prove himself, would be an equally good player as Lamar Odom and Chris Bosh (they are just behind him in PER this past year). If teams that employ full-on scouting departments, some of which employ Dean Oliver, Daryl Morey, Roland Beech, and countless numbers of stats and math PhDs, with resources that we cannot even quite comprehend, WOULD JUST LOOK AT THE STATS, they would know this. Because you know this.

    2) Fazekas sucks, is not athletic enough to play in the NBA, and when given the chance in practice and on the court, has inspired exactly zero confidence in his abilities to be an NBA player despite Dave Berri’s endorsement.

    I dunno. I think I’d choose #2. “No one will take a stab at him” because HE SUCKS. Geez. You’re like the guy on my street who keeps screaming “Hallelujah! Hallelujah!” all night long.

    Look, I hear you about Faried and wouldn’t have been unhappy if he were the draftee. But I think Shumpert has some upside here and certainly fits a need, while definitely not filling ALL our needs.

  59. Ted Nelson

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: His name is Kenneth Faried, and the Knicks passed on him because they didn’t think he’d be able to

    Get over it. We understand that you wanted them to draft Faried. They didn’t. It’s over now. As a fan all you can do is either root for Iman or stop being a Knicks fan. Your point is understood. You liked Faried better than Iman. Donnie Walsh disagreed. You can at least take solace in Faried apparently being their 2nd choice.

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: It makes no sense. Go with precedent, not blind speculation and faith.

    Again, you’re detached from reality here. Why wasn’t Lasme the next Dennis Rodman? He was one of the most productive players in that draft. I would have taken Faried too, but I am not Donnie Walsh. It’s getting old you just continually commenting on how amazing Faried is. Whatever you think of Fazekas, the guy didn’t work out as a draft pick. Maybe he’ll get another chance and excel, but looking at 300 garbage minutes and crowning him better than Kevin Durant makes you sound totally ridiculous.

    You are honestly more of a Berri fan than Berri is. It really comes across as psychotic and I would honestly be scared to meet you in person.

  60. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Frank:
    2) Fazekas sucks, is not athletic enough to play in the NBA, and when given the chance in practice and on the court, has inspired exactly zero confidence in his abilities to be an NBA player despite Dave Berri’s endorsement.

    I dunno. I think I’d choose #2.“No one will take a stab at him” because HE SUCKS. Geez. You’re like the guy on my street who keeps screaming “Hallelujah! Halleljah!” all night long.

    Did you not read the part about him posting those above-average numbers in limited minutes in the NBA? HE WAS GIVEN A CHANCE AND HE PUT UP GREAT NUMBERS YET INSPIRED NO CONFIDENCE. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.

  61. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Eat it, Nelson. The principle remains that a player with great stats in college is more likely (not certain, but likely) to be a great player in the NBA. Selby had awful stats. Shumpert can’t shoot for his life. Faried was a great rebounder and could play, as others have played, as an undersized PF. I’m more concerned with likelihood. Even if Shumpert has a 20% chance of being good at some point in his career, I’d wager that Faried supersedes that chance by no small margin. Stats, stats, stats. I don’t know who’s going to be better, but I’m pretty sure who has the better chance. I can complain all I want, too, thanks. It’s a free internets. If Mr. Knickerblogger (whose views on likelihood and chance and statistical projections tend to align with mine) doesn’t like my contrarian nature, I welcome the ban. If not, I’m going to keep blasting the “classy” Mr. Walsh for his quasi-moronic decision making in the draft. That’s what we’re here for. ESPN.com can have the mouth-breathing rah-rah fanboy fanclub.

    And what’s this “guarding NBA centers” hogwash? No one said Faried was going to guard a center.

  62. Frank

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: Did you not read the part about him posting those above-averagenumbers in limited minutes in the NBA? HE WAS GIVEN A CHANCE AND HE PUT UP GREAT NUMBERS YET INSPIRED NO CONFIDENCE. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.

    I’m sure those 102 games in which he played 2.5 minutes/game trying to box out Ahmad Nivins, Lester Hudson, Rashad Jones-Jennings, Richard Hendrix, Chris Lofton, and Stephane Lasme as the clock ticked down to zero in a 24 point blowout really gave everyone a good look at his pro potential.

  63. Ted Nelson

    Count de Pennies: I’m not jumping to any conclusions. I’ve already owned up to my cavernous ignorance of college payers and, by extension, the draft.

    I think I get your overall point that maybe Shumpert was a good pick relative to the situation even if he doesn’t work out that well. I just didn’t think it was that well presented, I guess.

  64. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Frank: I’m sure those 102 games in which he played 2.5 minutes/game trying to box out Ahmad Nivins, Lester Hudson, Rashad Jones-Jennings, Richard Hendrix, Chris Lofton, and Stephane Lasme as the clock ticked down to zero in a 24 point blowout really gave everyone a good look at his pro potential.

    I love your claim that anyone can post those numbers against NBA scrubs. If that’s true, why do so many garbage-time players have shitty numbers? Choosing to discredit certain numbers because of your hypothetical scenario sounds awfully unscientific, to me.

  65. Frank

    Ever heard of Buzz Arlett? What, you haven’t? He’s just the all-time home run leader in triple-A baseball.

    Dude, you really just need to let it go. Fazekas sucks. Berri let you down. He didn’t mean it, honest.

  66. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Now you’re just trolling. Your argument has no substance, and you’re trying to get a rise out of me. Say something meaningful and get back under your bridge.

  67. Ted Nelson

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: Eat it, Nelson. The principle remains that a player with great stats in college is more likely (not certain, but likely) to be a great player in the NBA.

    The principle remains that you come across as stark-raving-mad in your comments and that the Knicks did not draft Faried.

    I have agreed with you that I also would have drafted Faried. You still keep going on and on and on and on and on about nothing. They did not draft Faried. Get over it. Even if Faried is the greatest player in NBA history, Shumpert can still be a solid rotation piece for the Knicks. Even if he can’t shoot or score, he can bring other things to the table. You get so hung up on one stat at a time that you miss the picture.

    The fact (reality) is that it’s really hard to evaluate prospects. There are tons of confounding variables: level of comp, role, teammates, work ethic, development… a million others.
    Where people disagree with you is your insistence that Berri/Wow is always right on draft prospects. He’s/It’s not. (I don’t think he even does that analysis himself.) Fazekas is just one example. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of others. Joey Dorsey and Hendrix were better draft prospects than Durant. If you don’t see that his system has flaws, I don’t know what to tell you.

  68. Brian Cronin

    I dunno, THCJ, I mostly agree with you (especially about the raw deal Fazekas has gotten from the NBA) and you’re kinda freaking me out, so I think you should probably calm down a tad.

    As for Faried, sure, I’d have liked him as well, but the Knicks apparently are committed to Amar’e as a 4, and if that’s the case, Faried is not a 5 in the NBA, so while he is likely going to be a productive NBA player, the Knicks likely just didn’t see a spot for him, especially when D’Antoni will likely play Amar’e 40 minutes a game or something like that. ;)

  69. Doug

    What of Fazekas’ defense? It seems like the knock on him is that he’s unathletic, slow and soft.

  70. Frank

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman:
    Now you’re just trolling. Your argument has no substance, and you’re trying to get a rise out of me. Say something meaningful and get back under your bridge.

    LOL at this point you’re probably right, at least about trying to get a rise out of you.

    Your loyalty is truly commendable. I’ve really never come across anything like it.

    OK stupid argument over. sorry everyone.

  71. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    It’s fun to freak out. To quote NYC hardcore band Sheer Terror: “Just can’t hate enough.” I’m over it, now, though. If you really think that a player who maxed at .517 TS% in NCAA ball will likely be anything but a 6’5″ Jared Jeffries, well, cool. I don’t care.

  72. Brian Cronin

    What of Fazekas’ defense? It seems like the knock on him is that he’s unathletic, slow and soft.

    He is not a good defender, but it is not a question of “Should Fazekas be an All-Star in the NBA?” as much as it is “Should Fazekas get a job in the NBA?” The guy is too good of an offensive player to not even be a bench player in the NBA.

  73. Ted Nelson

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: If not, I’m going to keep blasting the “classy” Mr. Walsh for his quasi-moronic decision making in the draft.

    You are really out there… get back on your meds. Seriously. I am in fear for the public safety around you.

    Donnie Walsh has one of the better draft records of all-time. You are way out there. Get in touch with reality a little.

    You realize that Berri’s PAWS40 rates Iman Shumpert as an above average NBA player, right? Average is 7.1 and Berri’s system has Shumpert at 10. Berri likes Shumpert, you love Berri, but you hate Shumpert.

    John Harrellson had literally the highest PAWS40 of any player according to WoW… yet Walsh is a moron. The system you put all your faith into LOVES Harrellson, but picking him was moronic?

    He was looking at Leonard who had the highest PAWS40 at SF, and apparently Faried with the highest PAWS40 overall was 2nd on his board at 17.

    You are not making any sense whatsoever. Just ranting that they didn’t take the one guy you liked.

  74. Ted Nelson

    Frank: Your loyalty is truly commendable.

    Berri likes Shumpert as a prospect and loves Harrellson as a prospect… so I don’t think THCJ is loyal so much as just looking to freak out over whatever he can.

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: If you really think that a player who maxed at .517 TS% in NCAA ball will likely be anything but a 6’5? Jared Jeffries, well, cool. I don’t care.

    Dave Berri thinks Iman Shumpert will be a good NBA player based on his stats… Stats. Stats. Stats. Berri. Berri. Berri. PAWS40 loves Harrellson and Shumpert both…

  75. Frank O.

    Respectfully, the Faried argument seems superfluous.
    He’d need to play PF, and the Knicks have a 35-minute PF in Amare.
    The Knicks logic makes sense to me: they needed a C and a G.
    Last year, they got dogged for not going after their needs, a C and a G.
    This year, Walsh did just that. He got a G at 17 in a weak draft, and there is reason to feel good about the pick.
    He got a C in the second round that most people say nice things about.
    There is evidence that the Knicks have picked players that have shown steady growth over their college careers. Fields showed improvement every year. These two new guys also showed solid improvement year to year. While that shows their not freakish talents, it does show they work hard to improve.
    Clearly Shumpert is going to take a ton of shots when you have Amare and melo taking most shots. He’s 6’6, rebounds well and plays D. If the Knicks can get good board output from Fields and Shumpert, there is great value in that.
    Faried is kind of one dimensional. There was a reason he was drafted later. He wasn’t going to get minutes on the Knicks.
    I don’t think anyone is crazy. I just think frustration is just that.
    Walsh didn’t make a bad pick, a panicked pick. He made a decent pick that showed logic. Yes, we need boards, but we need them from the C.

  76. Frank

    Brian Cronin: He is not a good defender, but it is not a question of “Should Fazekas be an All-Star in the NBA?” as much as it is “Should Fazekas get a job in the NBA?” The guy is too good of an offensive player to not even be a bench player in the NBA.

    That I will probably agree with – I was sort of just giving THCJ a hard time because PAWS40 projected him to be better than every other player in the 2007 NBA draft. He HAS to be better than some of the really crappy backup 4/5 guys in the league. Maybe he doesn’t work hard in practice, or is just a jerk.

  77. Frank

    On another note – and touched on by Woj at Yahoo – there has to be some repercussion for the way Reggie Jackson made a complete mockery of the predraft process. How can you not participate in ANY of the predraft stuff and not allow anyone (except who you want to be drafted by) to review your medical records especially when you are saying you’re not participating because of injury? That is just asking for under-the-table deals and for players to completely stop doing predraft stuff.

  78. Ted Nelson

    Brian and Frank O.,

    I don’t really buy the need argument. I am generally against drafting for need, but in this case specifically… say there are 13 MPG when Amare is on the bench. Could you really not slide Amare to the 5 for 7 MPG to get Faried 20 MPG as a young player? If Faried’s really amazing, are the Knicks going to have a C who is so great they can’t live with Amare at C for 12 MPG and/or on the bench a few more minutes to get Faried 25 MPG? If he’s amazing in 20-25 MPG his first could of years in the league… suddenly he’s got great trade value to move for either another established performer at a “need” spot or a high draft pick to take a prospect they love.
    Basically, if you think Faried is better than Shumpert I think you take Faried.

  79. Z

    Frank:
    Ever heard of Buzz Arlett? What, you haven’t?He’s just the all-time home run leader in triple-A baseball.

    I thought it was Crash Davis :)

  80. Ted Nelson

    Frank: Reggie Jackson made a complete mockery of the predraft process

    Meh… either you need a more formal process or players can do whatever they want. Reggie Jackson a. is already a HOF baseball player so he’s got that going for him and b. had millions of dollars to gain by working out for teams picks way ahead of 24… so he has no incentive to throw that money away. As long as there are 1st round slots… the only way you can really game the system to get a better deal is ensuring you fall to the 2nd round. Jackson failed to do that clearly.

  81. Z

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman:
    This is akin to choosing a girlfriend with a history of cheating because she “probably won’t do it again” instead of the faithful woman because “Who knows, she might not be as good to me as she was to others in the past.” It makes no sense. Go with precedent, not blind speculation and faith.

    On the other hand, which job would would an aspiring actress prefer: a) Telemarketer for $40,000 a year, or b) Hostess at the Ivy for $20,000 a year? One is a sure thing, but the other has WAY more upside. As her career councilor, would you berate her for choosing the latter?

  82. Frank

    Ted Nelson: Meh… either you need a more formal process or players can do whatever they want. Reggie Jackson a. is already a HOF baseball player so he’s got that going for him and b. had millions of dollars to gain by working out for teams picks way ahead of 24… so he has no incentive to throw that money away. As long as there are 1st round slots… the only way you can really game the system to get a better deal is ensuring you fall to the 2nd round. Jackson failed to do that clearly.

    That’s not totally true. Imagine if the Knicks had the #12 pick rather than the #17 pick. Jimmer wants to go to NYK where has a ready-made fan base and much larger local (and probably national) advertising potential. The difference between the #10 and #12 slot is less than $200K, which he could make up in about 15 minutes of NYC-style marketing. When you get into the 20s, the difference between the picks is as little as 5-25K per year, otherwise known as a good night out at Scores. If you figure your range is 24-30 (which was Jackson’s range) in the 1st round and that you’d rather be in a specific situation rather than roll the dice, I can totally see gaming the system.

    I’m not saying that Jackson was purposefully gaming the system this year (although he probably was) – it just opens up this kind of tactic for the future. Dudes could just make up injuries – “I tore my ACL! Sorry, you can’t talk to my doctors or look at my records, but sure, give me a guaranteed contract without that info – or let me slide to the team that knows I don’t have a real injury”.

    I sort of wish Stephen Curry had done that actually.

  83. Frank O.

    Ted Nelson:
    Brian and Frank O.,

    I don’t really buy the need argument. I am generally against drafting for need, but in this case specifically… say there are 13 MPG when Amare is on the bench. Could you really not slide Amare to the 5 for 7 MPG to get Faried 20 MPG as a young player? If Faried’s really amazing, are the Knicks going to have a C who is so great they can’t live with Amare at C for 12 MPG and/or on the bench a few more minutes to get Faried 25 MPG? If he’s amazing in 20-25 MPG his first could of years in the league… suddenly he’s got great trade value to move for either another established performer at a “need” spot or a high draft pick to take a prospect they love.
    Basically, if you think Faried is better than Shumpert I think you take Faried.

    I can see the logic of your argument.
    But it doesn’t take into account one clear issue:
    You just paid $100 million for Amare, and he clearly got worn down and beat down playing long minutes against big-bodied centers last year.
    His back, his knees…those are not things to trifle with. Personally, I think it is imperative the Knicks run Amare in his true position, to preserve him physically, and also mentally because he simply doesn’t want to be a C.
    So, I think in a vacuum, you are correct about picking who you believe to be the better player, but sometimes your needs outweigh the best player on the board argument.
    And I’m not convinced that Faried was the best player on the board, either. He plays a one-dimensional game, in my view, and on an established team – I think Walsh made this case – you go with a role player like that. On a team with a lot of holes, you don’t pick a guy who will be fighting for minutes with arguably your best and most valuable player.

  84. Z

    Ted Nelson:
    I kept hoping the Knicks would buy a pick, my girlfriend was confused when I wasn’t happy they bought Harrellson.

    Then she remembered she was dating Ted Nelson :)

  85. Frank

    Ted Nelson:
    http://jbrocato.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/2011-draft-win-score-numbers/

    FYI… Best I can tell based on the link above Berri’s system had Harrellson as literally the #7 prospect in the entire draft. He was the BPA according to WoW at that time.

    WoW had Shumpert as the #25 player in the draft, the #7 G in the draft. The only Gs ranked ahead of Iman still on the board were Ben Hansbrough, Norris Cole, and Charles Jenkins.

    That’s pretty interesting about Harrellson. As noted way above in this thread, Harrellson doesn’t foul and he doesn’t turn the ball over much. Sounds like a guy who knows his limitations. Whether he can keep that up against NBA-caliber centers is another story, but that’s an interesting find.

  86. Ted Nelson

    Frank: If you figure your range is 24-30 (which was Jackson’s range) in the 1st round and that you’d rather be in a specific situation rather than roll the dice, I can totally see gaming the system.

    You have a lot to lose there, though, which is why not a lot of players do that. Since you can’t enter into a legal contract saying they’ll take you #24… you have to trust their word. Say people are really concerned about Bismack’s knee and buyout so he falls to #24… OKC takes him. Jackson might be totally screwed now, since he hasn’t worked out for anyone else or even given them his medicals.

    Guys will not work out for teams behind where they want to/are promised to get drafted a lot of the time, but it’s a lot rarer for them not to work out for teams in front of where they want to get drafted.

    Teams try to game the system as much as and probably way more than players do, by making promises, asking guys not to work out for other teams, etc. That’s why I originally said that I don’t see why you’re calling out Mr. OCtober instead of the system.

    Frank: I’m not saying that Jackson was purposefully gaming the system this year (although he probably was) – it just opens up this kind of tactic for the future.

    That’s always been a possibility, though, it’s nothing new. It hasn’t really seemed to be a problem despite always being an option. Guys sometimes won’t work out for teams behind a certain pick, but you just never hear many examples of the opposite.

    And if Reggie’s range was 24-30 in your opinion and he went #24… he didn’t gain or change anything. He went at the top of what you call his range.

  87. Ted Nelson

    Z: Then she remembered she was dating Ted Nelson :)

    lol

    Frank O.: But it doesn’t take into account one clear issue:
    You just paid $100 million for Amare, and he clearly got worn down and beat down playing long minutes against big-bodied centers last year.

    I’m talking 7 MPG though… and if Faried is really the next Rodman he’ll be able to guard a lot of the current Cs in the NBA. I think you might get more of a physical pounding these days guarding athletic PFs than slower but more physical Cs.

    Again… I don’t think you can (can possibly, have to, or should try to) solve all your problems with one pick. Just get the best piece for your rotation. You’re going to need more than 2 bigmen no matter what. You can find the other one in a Turiaf/Harrellson/Jordan or you can wait till a later date. I think you should largely treat players as fungible. There’s something to consistency and building a team, but if you get a better player he’s going to have better trade value later 9 out of 10 times. The opposite view on not having an established team is that the Knicks don’t have an established team because they lack talent. They need talent, not to fill holes.

    I believe/speculate Walsh thought Shumpert was the BPA. Maybe he thought it was Faried and didn’t do it because of need, but if that was the case I think it was the wrong decision. If he truly thought Faried was the next Rodman and Shumpert was an ok role player, I don’t think he’d have taken Shumpert.

  88. ess-dog

    In the light of day, I’m going to try and be hopeful about this pick:

    1. It does seems as if we are now dedicated to Stoudy as a 4. Faried or Singleton would’ve been slotted behind them. I know, I know, BPA, but I think we had Singleton and Shumpert about even.

    2. I think Shumpert will at least start as a 2 guard. What seems reasonable is that we would have Billups/Douglas/Shumpert rotate at the 3 guard spots. They can all handle and defend fairly well, and hopefully pass and hit the open three (or in Shumpert’s case, learn to hit it.)

    3. I think Fields moves to back up Melo/Stat. It will be easier for him to defend 3’s and he can focus on boarding and again, hopefully hitting the open three. Maybe Shawne will be back to help back up Amare.

    4. So far, our 5’s are Turiaf/Harrelson/Jordan. Far from awe inspiring. Maybe we make a play for a cheap vet center as well?

    All in all, we just replace Carter with Shumpert and Shelden/Jeffries with Harrelson/Jordan. Those are 10 guys right there if you include Shawne and Jordan, a pretty full rotation for D’Antoni. Throw in Walker and Balkman for kicks. Not amazing, but it could’ve been a lot worse and we didn’t sacrifice cap space beyond our original pick and a 2nd rounder. We did draft for need considering the direction we’re going, and it can be argued that we took the best players at those positions that were available at those spots, not the BEST PLAYERS AVAILABLE, but the best at pg and c.

    Then we enter 2012 free agency with no draft picks, a big chunk of cap space and a year under Shumpert/Jordan/Harrelson’s belts. I mean, at least we aren’t discussing a shitswap on the level of that Bucks/Kings/Charlotte trade.

  89. Frank

    ess-dog:
    I mean, at least we aren’t discussing a shitswap on the level of that Bucks/Kings/Charlotte trade.

    Yeah seriously, what was up with Sacramento’s part of that trade? I have some loyalty to Sac since my wife’s from there, and it just kills me to see a ridiculous trade like that. I get liking Jimmer and all but just take him at 7 and let Beno back him up, rather than having Jimmer, Evans, and Salmons all fighting for shots, with the inevitable result of Demarcus Cousins going postal on someone.

  90. SJK

    Am I the only one that thinks Josh Harrelson is ever so slightly reminiscent of David Lee when he came into the league. Say, a poor man’s David Lee. Not as skilled offensively but probably can board at the same rate. Harrelson is an inch taller and 15 pounds heavier so he can probably be more effective as a defender against NBA C’s then Lee was. Of course I’m not expecting much from Harrelson as I think his offensive game is significantly worse than Lee’s.

  91. iserp

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: Even if Shumpert has a 20% chance of being good at some point in his career, I’d wager that Faried supersedes that chance by no small margin. Stats, stats, stats.

    That’s a bit of a stretch of the meaning of stats. Either Shumpert is going to be good at some point in his career, 100% probability, or either he isn’t, 0%. However you can talk about having a confidence level of 20% that Shumpert is going to be a good player, meaning something like: “Of all the player that i say they have 20% probability of being a good player, 20% of them become good players”

    However, Donnie Walsh might assign Shumpert a probability of 80%, meaning that “Of all the players that Donnie Walsh say they have 80% probability of being a good player, 80% of them become good players”.

    And your statement (20% probability) and Donnie Walsh (80%) are right, at the same time, and you can’t say which one is better.

    An example, let’s forecast if it is going to rain. You can say, “it is going to rain with 30% probability, because 30% of the days of the year, it rains”, but i also can say, “it is going to rain with a 10% probability, because 10% of days of summer, it rains”, but you can also say, “it is going to rain with a 50% probability, because days which are cloudy in the morning, 50% of them, rains”. All three statements are true; in the end, the probability was either 100% or 0%.

    If you can get tighters probabilities (closer to 0% or 100%), you get better results, however, i don’t see Berri as a tight grasp of what a player is going to be. I am pretty sure that Donnie Walsh assigns “confidence levels” with some other criterion that might be better (or no) than Berri’s, but just because it is different (as in the rain example), it doesn’t mean it is worse.

  92. Frank O.

    Ted Nelson: lol

    I’m talking 7 MPG though… and if Faried is really the next Rodman he’ll be able to guard a lot of the current Cs in the NBA. I think you might get more of a physical pounding these days guarding athletic PFs than slower but more physical Cs.

    Again… I don’t think you can (can possibly, have to, or should try to) solve all your problems with one pick. Just get the best piece for your rotation. You’re going to need more than 2 bigmen no matter what. You can find the other one in a Turiaf/Harrellson/Jordan or you can wait till a later date. I think you should largely treat players as fungible. There’s something to consistency and building a team, but if you get a better player he’s going to have better trade value later 9 out of 10 times. The opposite view on not having an established team is that the Knicks don’t have an established team because they lack talent. They need talent, not to fill holes.

    I believe/speculate Walsh thought Shumpert was the BPA. Maybe he thought it was Faried and didn’t do it because of need, but if that was the case I think it was the wrong decision. If he truly thought Faried was the next Rodman and Shumpert was an ok role player, I don’t think he’d have taken Shumpert.

    I agree with that last sentence. If Faried was believed to be the next Rodman, you take him.
    But no one knew Rodman was Rodman until he came into his own.

    I don’t contribute much during draft time on knickerblogger.net – although I always lurk :) – because it’s such a crap shoot. Who the hell really knows, which is, I think, a point you were making earlier.
    As cited before, no one projected Fields as a starter. Can’t miss guys, missed. Freakish talents wasted their talents. And good college players became stars.
    FUBAR

  93. Ted Nelson

    Frank O.: As cited before, no one projected Fields as a starter.

    Except maybe Donnie Walsh and/or someone inside the Knicks’ organization. As a fan I mostly agree with the crap-shoot argument. As an NBA GM or owner who paid a GM… I’d like to think there’s some skill involved in player evaluation (and as a fan I do too). Walsh is a guy with a long draft/evaluation track record that, without quantifying it, I feel is much better than average.

    I like the Shumpert pick and think he may have been the BPA in Walsh’s view, I’m just arguing that if they picked Shumpert over a guy they liked better I think that’s a mistake regardless of perceived need, especially because needs change and can be filled in other ways. The Rodman example is an exaggerated version of what still holds true at a more marginal level: take BPA.

  94. Ted Nelson

    Ted Nelson: As a fan I mostly agree with the crap-shoot argument. As an NBA GM or owner who paid a GM… I’d like to think there’s some skill involved in player evaluation (and as a fan I do too).

    That wasn’t well written at all or even really what I meant to say really. What I mean there is that I don’t trust my opinion as a fan to be anything more than a crap-shoot (though stats and the limited NCAA/Euro games I watch help make it maybe more like poker than craps or a slot machine), but I do trust an NBA GM/front office with a track record of success to be better (the World Series of Poker vs. my weekly poker game).

  95. Brian Cronin

    Brian and Frank O.,

    I don’t really buy the need argument. I am generally against drafting for need, but in this case specifically… say there are 13 MPG when Amare is on the bench. Could you really not slide Amare to the 5 for 7 MPG to get Faried 20 MPG as a young player? If Faried’s really amazing, are the Knicks going to have a C who is so great they can’t live with Amare at C for 12 MPG and/or on the bench a few more minutes to get Faried 25 MPG? If he’s amazing in 20-25 MPG his first could of years in the league… suddenly he’s got great trade value to move for either another established performer at a “need” spot or a high draft pick to take a prospect they love.
    Basically, if you think Faried is better than Shumpert I think you take Faried.

    I actually agree with that personally (which is why I would have taken Faried), but I think most NBA teams would do it like the Knicks did (if they have three guys who they all think are roughly as good, go with the guy who has the best shot at getting minutes), so I’m saying more that I can see why they didn’t want Faried or Singleton.

    It might very well be counter-intuitive, but I think most GMs would do it, which is why I can’t kill Walsh for doing it, even if I didn’t want him to. Sort of like taking Jonah Hill, really. I did not like the pick, but I say 99/100 NBA GMs take Hill with the #8 pick in 2009 if they were in the Knicks’ shoes.

  96. Ben R

    I personally would have liked Faried a lot more than Shumpert, I also would ahve prefered Brooks but overall I don’t think Shumpert was a bad pick. I don’t project him as a PG but see him more as a (hopefully) rich mans Corey Brewer. A very good defender who can handle some ball distribution duties with a limited offensive game. The key to his success, other than developing a consistant three point shot, is to know his role and pick his spots. If he develops at least a passable three point shot he could be great backing up Fields and Melo (When Melo sits Fields slides to the 3).

    As for Harrelson he worries me quite a bit. His stats last year were good (I would have prefered a little more offense and one more block per 40but overall they were solid) but the big red flag is that he couldn’t get on the court until his senior year. Maybe he’s a late bloomer but he was a role player in college and his ceiling seems super low. Though I was not high on Selby pick 45 is the perfect time to take a flyer on a high ceiling player like him.

    For undrafted free agents I want Damian Saunders:
    14.8 pts 9.3 rebs 3.0 asts 2.7 stls 3.2 blks and only 2.0 tos per 40
    2pt% of 53.0% and a 3pt% of 35.7%.

    He was a lockdown defender high energy player sort of a poor mans Faried (though more of a true SF) or possibly a rich mans Balkman. His passing skills combined with over 3 stls per 40 last year aand over 3 blks per 40 this year and a decent 3 point shot.

  97. Ted Nelson

    Ben R: I don’t project him as a PG

    I doubt he develops into a PG either (maybe a combo-guard or after a few years a PG), but what are you basing this on?

    Ben R: see him more as a (hopefully) rich mans Corey Brewer

    I sort of see that as a worst case, if only since Brewer hasn’t done squat. (I know you said rich man’s… but who is a rich man’s Brewer? There’s a lot of room between Brewer and good players who share some similarities.) Iman had 37 pounds on Brewer pre-draft despite being two inches shorter, so I’m hoping that helps him defensively and that he has/develops more guard skills/offensive skills than Brewer… who is sort of an undersized, crappy SF.

  98. ess-dog

    Ted Nelson: That wasn’t well written at all or even really what I meant to say really. What I mean there is that I don’t trust my opinion as a fan to be anything more than a crap-shoot (though stats and the limited NCAA/Euro games I watch help make it maybe more like poker than craps or a slot machine), but I do trust an NBA GM/front office with a track record of success to be better (the World Series of Poker vs. my weekly poker game).

    LOL Ted, you’re even hard on yourself. I got what you were saying.

    The problem I have with Walsh is that he doesn’t seem to know how to trade down. The Jordan Hill draft was the perfect time to trade down for two picks, and he probably could’ve squeezed another asset out of a team to move down a few spots this year.
    I just don’t know that Washington or the Bucks would’ve taken Shumpert. Did we even try that approach? About half the league hadn’t picked yet. No one wanted to move up to 17?

  99. Frank O.

    What sucks is we won’t probably see these guys until the start of the season, if that….
    Although summer has been a time for fool’s gold.

  100. latke

    Anyone think with the Wizards taking Biyombo that McGee might be available? I’m not a huge fan due to attitude concerns, but the Wiz have had a pretty bad culture there for a while, so that could be a part of it. Plus, he is only 23.

  101. Frank O.

    latke:
    Anyone think with the Wizards taking Biyombo that McGee might be available? I’m not a huge fan due to attitude concerns, but the Wiz have had a pretty bad culture there for a while, so that could be a part of it. Plus, he is only 23.

    No way they are trading McGee.

  102. Z

    Ted Nelson: I doubt he develops into a PG either (maybe a combo-guard or after a few years a PG), but what are you basing this on?

    but who is a rich man’s Brewer?

    Eric Snow? Ron Harper? John Starks? Latrell Sprewell?

    Brewer is a forward and Shumpert’s a guard, but as effective, poor efficiency, plus defenders go there is room for them in the league (and at #17 in a weak draft to get one would be a pretty good day at the office, no?)

  103. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    iserp: That’s a bit of a stretch of the meaning of stats. Either Shumpert is going to be good at some point in his career, 100% probability, or either he isn’t, 0%. However you can talk about having a confidence level of 20% that Shumpert is going to be a good player, meaning something like: “Of all the player that i say they have 20% probability of being a good player, 20% of them become good players”

    Yes, yes, that is what I meant.

  104. adrenaline98

    I also believe Donnie thought Shumpert is the better candidate. Faried is highly 1 dimensional. His defense will be predicated on his ability to guard 3s and 4s. He certainly cannot guard 5s. He is NOT the next Rodman, because Rodman was a true 6’8. Faried is a skinny Barkley. He is 6’6 with a great motor. Could he contribute to the Knicks? Yes. Statistically, is he better at Morehead State? Yes.

    But judging from everything available, watching his films, he does 2 things well: Jumps to dunk, Jumps to rebound. I’m not sure why people are thinking his DEFENSE is any good. Shumpert has shown he can play defense and has the motor to play defense. He is a big guard that can rebound. He has proven he can be a playmaker with Favors or a scorer when needed. Is he the best playmaker, like a CP3 or Nash? Of course not. Is he an amazing scorer like D-Wade? Absolutely not. But if you think Faried is the next Rodman, I think you’re out of your mind. How many one dimensional players in college go on to be a hall of fame player? Rodman had grit and he had a nastiness to him, a mentality to goad the opposing team players into technical foul, cheap shots that pissed off opposing players. Is Faried that? If not, then he can’t even come close to Rodman.

    In this case, I think Walsh took best overall talent available + fill a need, which is why I’m not down on Shumpert. If he ends up being awful, such is life in the NBA. But a defensive player with great athleticism/slashing/handling abilities and height is rare. Two things prove you have a good motor, and that if you’re not that talented, you can be a productive member of the NBA. Rebounding and defense. Anytime you have 1 of those 2 abilities, you will find a role in this league, like David Lee or Bruce Bowen. Rarely do you get a Lee or Bowen with athleticism. This is why I like Shumpert. He shot 20% and took enough shots to wow the FO with his shooting in his workouts. That shows some commitment that we aren’t…

  105. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Frank O.: As cited before, no one projected Fields as a starter. Can’t miss guys, missed.

    I did, actually.

  106. Ted Nelson

    adrenaline98: But if you think Faried is the next Rodman, I think you’re out of your mind.

    It’s very unlikely that any player that’s not a consensus #1 overall pick will make the HOF… Dennis Rodman wasn’t 6-8, though. He wasn’t even listed at 6-8. He came into the NBA as a SF. Watching youtube videos of Faried defending the guys Morehead played isn’t going to give you any idea about his man defense in the NBA. To say Faried lacks intensity is to ignore reality, though.

    Z: Eric Snow? Ron Harper? John Starks? Latrell Sprewell?

    Brewer is a forward and Shumpert’s a guard

    There’s a whole, whole lot of variation between those guys.

    ess-dog: The problem I have with Walsh is that he doesn’t seem to know how to trade down.

    Pretty hard to speculate on that, I’d say. I can’t think of any examples of Walsh moving up or down, but with his draft record I don’t think there’s much room to complain. Getting the right players is almost always more important than getting cute and picking up an extra 2nd rounder 5 years from now. I mean I have no problem with trading around, but whatever philosophy you use you’d better draft the right players. Walsh has largely done that.

  107. nicos

    Late to chime in but I’m okay with Shumpert (though I’d have preferred either Singleton or Faried)- it basically boils down to this: if his jumper “ain’t broke” as Donnie says then you’re probably looking at a combo guard version of Mbah a Moute. And given the fact that he does have some point skills (or at least more than TD did coming into the league) his ceiling could be pretty decent. If his shot is broke then it’s hello Corey Brewer- really athletic defender who’s bad enough everywhere else that he’s not going to crack the rotation on a decent team. Moderate risk- Moderate to maybe a bit better than moderate reward. Kind of meh but could turn out to be fairly useful given the current roster.
    As for Harrellson- was impressed with what I saw of him in the tourney and maybe on a big-challenged team like the Knicks he could give a decent 10 minutes off of the bench but most likely on a good team the only thing he’s going to be good for is dancing poorly at the victory parade. Then again if Mark Madsen can last 9 years in the league- and I think Harrellson could be at least somewhat better than that- Harrellson’s probably a decent pick. I’d have rather coughed up more money and taken a flyer on Tyler or even picked Selby and hope he turns into an asset- you can find 10 minute a night guys like Earl Barron in the D league or in free agency easily enough that it seems like a missed opportunity.

  108. Z

    Ted Nelson:

    There’s a whole, whole lot of variation between those guys.

    Yeah, I know. But they are all poor-shooting guys who were considered good defensive tweeners and all played big roles on teams that went to the finals. If Shumpert is “the next Eric Snow” that’s still probably better than we could have realistically hoped for with this pick. (And then we can proceed to pay him like the next Eric Snow! :)

  109. MSA

    I dont get all the hate on our picks.

    Even the Berri-wackos seem to have enjoyed (as noted by Ted)

    http://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/is-joe-dumars-seeking-to-move-up-in-the-2012-draft/

    “So based on these numbers, who should be happy today? The Denver Nuggets managed to add two above average players — Kenneth Faried and Jordan Hamilton – to a 2011 playoff team… …Of the teams with multiple picks like Denver, the Houston Rockets, New Jersey Nets, and NEW YORK KNICKS are the only other teams to spend all their picks on players with PAWS40 marks that are above average…”

    We could have done better but I guess it was a ok draft for us. The point was not to spill a Lebron out of our asses. Was to get good role players that complement our “stars” wasent ?

  110. KnickfaninNJ

    I don’t watch much college basketball, but looking at all the posts and news stories there is one nice thing about Shumpert that hasn’t been mentioned here. His role on the team changed substantially during his time in college. He started as point guard, but moved to shooting guard as the team lost scorers to the draft or graduation. In practice this should mean that many of his shots as point guard were when he was open, but that almost all of his shots as shooting guard were defended (especially as he was his team’s leading scorer). I would have expected his TS% to go down but actually it went up, implying he got a lot better. On the Knicks he should be shooting when open, so he might do fine at scoring. That would be good for where he was drafted and good for a supposed defensive specialist.

  111. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Looking at the numbers again, I’m extremely high on Josh Harrellson. I think his draft status is reflected in his per game numbers, but he played 1000+ minutes last season and was incredibly efficient. If he can improve his free throw form, he could be a .600+ TS center in this league, and those are valuable, valuable, valuable. Good pick, Donnie. Now just trade Shumpert plus a few mil of Dolan cash for Faried and we’ll be okay.

  112. ess-dog

    Re: Berri, I guess PAWS40 makes a big difference compared to WS. Taking position into account, does this somewhat negate the extreme effect of rebounding in WS? This makes Shumpert look a lot better.

    Below are Shumpert and Westbrook’s sophmore campaigns:

    2009-10 Georgia Tech min:30.1 FG:3.5 FGA:9.0 FG%.385 3P:1.2 3PA:3.7 3P%.333 FT:1.8 FTA:2.5 FT%.720 TRB:3.6 AST:4.0 STL:1.9 BLK:0.2 PTS:10.0

    2007-08 UCLA min:33.8 FG:4.7 FGA:10.0 FG%:.465 3P:0.7 3PA:2.0 3P%.338 FT:2.7 FTA:3.8 FT%:713 TRB:3.9 AST:4.3 STL:1.6 BLK:0.2 PTS:12.7

    Pretty similar (except for the huge .80% gap in FG%.) I can kind of see why Walsh jumped on him. Athletic combo guards are all the rage these days. Apparently his workout was mind-blowing. “The best we’ve seen here” said D’Antoni.

    I have no doubt that Shumpert had awful coaching at GT, so maybe he can be coached up somewhat in “ball movement” and “shot selection”. If he can even get to a Wilson Chandler level TS% I think he could be a useful player.

  113. ess-dog

    Btw, how good are the Nuggets going to be? A starting lineup of Nene, Faried, Gallo, Afflalo and Lawson will be a tremendously efficient model. They might break records. Plus they’ll probably move Chandler for picks and or other useful players. Hamilton is also a great addition and will give them scoring from the bench. They still have Birdman and Moz for additional size and defense and Miller to back up Lawson. If they could just lose Al Buckets…

  114. Z-man

    ess,
    Actually I think Shumpert is more like Tyreke Evans (bigger and stronger, but not as quick) and their college numbers (albeit junior for Shump and freshman for Evans) are even more similar. Evans tailed off last year, and is far from efficient, but I would take him on the Knicks in a heartbeat.

    Recently THCJ,
    Strongly disagree on Shump vs. Faried, but couldn’t agree more on Harrellson. Liked what he did in the tournament, he has legit size, has some basic offensive skills, and might be a good rebounder with some work. Seems to play with an edge.

  115. Z-man

    Sorry, posted this in the last thread by mistake:

    Shump is definitely a glass half-empty, half-full type of pick. So was every other guy available at #17. I personally see the glass as half-full for a number of reasons:

    He has a big, fast, strong, athletic body
    He jumps as high as Nate Robinson and is 8 inches taller
    He has PG ball-handling and passing skills (just OK, not great)
    He can go to the rack with either hand
    He goes to the line a lot
    He makes his FTs at 80%
    He was an elite defender in a top conference
    He is an elite rebounder for a guard
    He was on a lousy team with a lousy coach
    His problems seem very correctable (shot selection, ball distribution)
    He doesn’t need to score to be effective on this team
    His new team has excellent offensive coaches
    His new team has a perfect mentor who is also a big, physical PG
    He doesn’t have a 40mpg all-star ahead of him at his position
    He has no defined character issues
    He fills a glaring need (perimeter defense vs. big, athletic guards and wings)

    I keep hearing about what a bad shooter he is, how inefficient he is. I remember the same arguments being made to criticize Wilson Chandler. (Ted, you were adamant in predicting that WC would never be a solid player or shooter, especially from 3, and that he needed to cut down on his 3-point shooting; yet last year he put up good numbers for us, especially from 3 despite increasing his volume.) Shumpert’s athleticism and shot are better for his position than Chandler’s were. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that his shot and efficiency will improve with better coaching, better teammates, and practice?

    Almost all of the guys drafted before Shumpert have huge questions marks about aspects of their games. You could argue that Shumpert’s issues are the most correctable of all of them, and that our situation is tailor-made for his rapid development. Maybe he doesn’t pan out, but if he does, he could wind up making teams that passed on him wish they…

  116. flossy

    Absent any improvement in his shooting form, I have to imagine Shumpert’s efficiency will get better purely be virtue of never, ever being double-teamed. Hell, playing between Billups, Melo and Stat he should be seeing the most wide-open looks of his entire life. Landry Fields was no better than average from 3 during college and he shot a healthy 39% from downtown as a rookie, thanks in part to the fact that he often had a all the time in the world to tee up wiiiiide open shots.

    If Shumpert spends the summer working on shooting off the catch I think he could probably be at a respectable open-look shooter his rookie year. Add to that his freakish athleticism, defensive prowess (kid was a RSB40 beast), skill in transition, and at least some playmaking ability… I dunno, I think with a bit of luck he could be a super-duper role player… just imagine Shumpert becoming the combo-guard equivalent of Andre Igoudala and how awesome that would be (and actually, Shumpert is basically the same size as Iggy but inch smaller all around, but with a better vertical coming into the pros). It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

  117. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Again, all of this is idle speculation:

    “If he can work on his rebounding…”

    “If he can develop a catch-and-shoot jumper…”

    “If he’s not double-teamed…”

    This is precisely why I wanted Faried:

    “If he can play as well as he has for the last four years…”

    It’s Moneyball, folks. All the scouts would rave about guys who looked like baseball players but couldn’t play exceptionally well. So Beane took advantage of the inefficiencies and won a whole lotta games. Faried was a great rebounder despite his size. Those numbers (and those numbers are staggering) aren’t simply due to being “just” better than the “less talented” players of his conference, they’re from being really, really good at basketball. I still believe it’s better to acquire players based on precedent than speculation.

  118. ess-dog

    Iguodala’s a great comparison actually. Hopefully Shumpert can get into his range of efficiency. If Donnie is to be believed, Shumpert can hit the NBA three. My biggest concern about Shumpert (and the whole team really) is that we still don’t have a top flight distributor, which renders Stat at about 3/4 to half his actual value.

    Stat used to be one of those .600+TS big men thanks to Nash but it seems like he’s being transformed into an outside-the-paint big. Maybe he will continue to work on his jump shot and post moves and things will work out. But right now, he’s not Garnett or Bosh. He’s not very good at posting isos. He loses the ball A LOT in those situations. He needs to be fed the ball in motion headed towards the basket.

    I think we have to hope that Melo can become a lead-ball handler/assist machine with stat down low and our shooters on the wings.

  119. flossy

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman: It’s Moneyball, folks

    Oh my god, give it a rest. Moneyball is the wrong sport, and NCAA statistics do *not* necessarily = NBA production. As about a million people have pointed out, PAWS40 predicts as many total busts as it does steals; and Kenneth Faried comes with as many question marks as any mid-first-round pick in a weak draft. A 6’6″ “big” man with no offensive polish, who plays the same position as our two best players and is too small to provide the interior defense we need, who spent four years in clown college racking up gaudy numbers on a team where his tallest active teammate was 6’4″… this is hardly a sure thing, and almost certainly not our savior. Stop acting so flabbergasted.

  120. flossy

    ess-dog:
    Iguodala’s a great comparison actually.Hopefully Shumpert can get into his range of efficiency.If Donnie is to be believed, Shumpert can hit the NBA three.My biggest concern about Shumpert (and the whole team really) is that we still don’t have a top flight distributor, which renders Stat at about 3/4 to half his actual value.

    Stat used to be one of those .600+TS big men thanks to Nash but it seems like he’s being transformed into an outside-the-paint big.Maybe he will continue to work on his jump shot and post moves and things will work out.But right now, he’s not Garnett or Bosh.He’s not very good at posting isos.He loses the ball A LOT in those situations.He needs to be fed the ball in motion headed towards the basket.

    I think we have to hope that Melo can become a lead-ball handler/assist machine with stat down low and our shooters on the wings.

    Agreed. One of the things Walsh has said he liked about Shumpert was his facility with the pick and roll. Too early to know how true that is or if it will translate, but if he is able to develop some effectiveness with even this one play, it would really do lot for the offense. If Shumpert works out, I think an eventual 1-2-3 lineup of Billups, Shumpert and Melo would be tough to defend because there is some decent playmaking ability across all three of those guys, if not any one transcendent orchestrator. And if Shumpert is able to catch on as an elite defender and passable offensive player, he would be the *perfect* guy to play between Chris Paul and Melo should everyone’s dreams come true.

  121. Doug

    The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman:
    Again, all of this is idle speculation:

    “If he can work on his rebounding…”

    “If he can develop a catch-and-shoot jumper…”

    “If he’s not double-teamed…”

    This is precisely why I wanted Faried:

    “If he can play as well as he has for the last four years…”

    It’s Moneyball, folks. All the scouts would rave about guys who looked like baseball players but couldn’t play exceptionally well. So Beane took advantage of the inefficiencies and won a whole lotta games.

    ARRRGH. Baseball IS NOT basketball. Everything in baseball is an independent event that can be analyzed in a vacuum. Hits. Strikeouts. Walks. Groundballs. Flyballs. Home runs.

    There is no teamwork in baseball. You don’t worry about if two players can play together. It is the perfect sport for statistical analysis. Basketball, owing to the very fact that it is a sport predicated on team play and sharing the basketball, is immensely more challenging than baseball to analyze statistically. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but we are a long way from developing metrics for basketball as reliable as wRC or xFIP.

    Billy Beane was famous for not watching games in order to retain his ability to make unbiased decisions, but you won’t find Daryl Morey doing the same.

  122. JK47

    Jowles is a supreme stat-head, but he seems to have a very simplified notion of how to use stats. If Dave Berri’s system likes you, you’re awesome, and if it doesn’t, you suck. There is no room for any gray area, no caveats, no “take this with a grain of salt,” no compensating for the weaknesses of the system. He uses stats like a drunk uses a lamppost– for support, not illumination. A more reasoned approach would be to say, “Dave Berri’s system likes player X, but you have to take into account factors Y and Z when looking at those numbers…” BUT NO. Dave Berri’s formulas are like Newton’s Laws or something– proven science fact. Not a lot of nuance in the man’s basketball worldview.

    I like him though… He’s funny and is a good writer.

  123. Z-man

    JK47: He uses stats like a drunk uses a lamppost– for support, not illumination.

    That’s DEEP, my brother.

  124. Ted Nelson

    THCJ,

    Your argument loses a lot in that Berri’s statistical model loves both Shumpert and Harrellson based on “precedent.” You are so high on Faried mostly because he put up stats that impressed Berri, yet you’re ignoring how impressed the same exact guys same exact model was with Shumpert. Not as impressed, but still quite impressed. If you are actually right and Faried goes on to be the best player in this draft, it’s going to be a whole lot different if the Knicks passed on him for a scrub than for an above average NBA player. Berri seems to think Shumpert has got a good chance to be above average.

    While it’s not wise to chalk all of Faried’s success up to level of competition, it’s also not wise to blindly ignore it. As I’ve said I’m also a Faried fan, but there are hundreds of Lasme and Dorsey examples of guys who couldn’t do what they did against NCAA comp in the NBA. Heck, an NCAA runner-up’soffense ran through Jared Goofy Jeffries.

    Moneyball is just an arbitrage strategy of looking for skills that are undervalues in the market. Beane switched from offense to defense once the league caught up with him. You could make a Moneyball argument for Shumpert’s defense and athleticism just like for Faried’s rebounding.
    Beane himself didn’t even buy into it as much as you are, as evidenced by letting an unathletic guy who’d succeeded against inferior competition with huge stats fall to the Red Sox in the 7th round: Youk. (That’s just one publicly available example.) To me the idea is not to blindly rely on stats in the same way other people blindly ignore them, but just to incorporate them as a major part of your analysis.

    I also thought given what I know that Faried was the best pick at 17, but that doesn’t make all other potential picks equally awful. Faried might be the next Rodman, but he also might be the next Lasme or Balkman or he might be the next Malik Rose. Now thatthey took Shumpert, how about some analysis of him?

  125. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    I wrote a 20-pager last semester about positivistic notions of truth in technical writing (focusing, actually, on Dean Oliver and Berri himself), and through my research I disagree wholeheartedly with all of this “stats don’t work well in basketball” bullshit. Berri’s methodology has held up very well in the peer-reviewed academic world, and that works for me; somehow I doubt that you all have some sort of advanced work in microeconometrics that makes you an expert on the subject. I’ve read academic responses to Berri’s regression, and it’s pretty damn good. Defense, of course, is a different matter, but it, too, can be quantified.

    The principle that I’ve put forward — that it’s better to speculate based on previous play (outcomes, such as TS% or ORB%) than athletic speculation (“he’s a good jumper”; “if he can learn how to shoot”) — is not relegated to baseball simply because baseball stats are easier to interpret. (I’m not trying to get ad hominem on your asses, but come on: your counter-arguments are weak as they get.)

    An example: as I’ve said, Nick Fazekas was, by any objective measure available, a strong NBA player in limited minutes. That he has not been given a chance in the league says nothing about statistics. It says everything about general managers’ ability to interpret the data available and negotiate it w/r/t what they believe they see when a player in on the floor.

    Stromile Swift. Kwame Brown. Michael Olowokandi. Andrea Bargnani.

    All terrible picks made by teams of “top-level” scouts and general managers.

    Jerome James. Eddy Curry. Rashard Lewis. Gilbert Arenas. Andrea Bargnani.

    All terrible contracts made by teams of “top-level” scouts and general managers.

    No, Berri is not infallible. But his methodology works, and correlates well with wins. WP/48 tends to be fairly constant as a player moves from team to team, as well. This bodes well for his research.

    I have a problem with the denial of stats over…

  126. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    “Your argument loses a lot in that Berri’s statistical model loves both Shumpert and Harrellson based on “precedent.”

    Sure, sure. I see this. I just believe that Faried was a top prospect while Shumpert is of the middling variety. Yeah, he projects pretty well, but I don’t like the idea of a shooter that poor on a team that values shooting so much. And yes, maybe he addresses a need better than Faried does, but it’s very possible that Faried turns into a monster rebounder who allows for more pure shooters to be on the floor at once (a complement to, say, Curry or Stat).

    I’m high on Harrellson. I was wrong to criticize him — if I did at all. (Can’t remember my moments of fury.)

  127. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Okay, I’m done talking about Faried.

    So… who likes Shumpert’s upside? His raw talent? Athleticism? Motor? Hustle? Heart?

  128. Ted Nelson

    JK47 -The thing is that Berri likes both the guys the Knicks picked. THCJ’s argument seems to be more that NCAA stats always translate to NBA and should be the only factor teams look at when picking, and if they don’t pick the guy with the highest PAWS40 total it was such a monumental mistake that it doesn’t matter who they did pick and we should all bitch about it for weeks.

    Doug – you make some good points, but most of the stuff we’re discussing here is as relevant in baseball as basketball. You can only do so much to compare stats for a Morehead State (assuming they’ve got a team) and GTech baseball players just like bball. And since Faried and Iman don’t play the same position, it becomes a bit like comparing a 2B to a RF or something.

  129. Z-man

    DeJuan Blair is still a statistically elite rebounder, byt his offensive game did not translate at all. His TS% fell from .60 as a soph to .52 as a 2nd year NBA player. He was completely useless in the playoffs this year (so was Landry Fields, for that matter.) At least Blair had some offensive skills in the post in college.

    PAWS40 had James Harden way down the list, and he seems to be turning out well.

    Being “really, really good at basketball” is your take on Faried because you value rebounding and efficiency so highly, never mind that Faried was a man against boys most games in college. Let me clue you in to something: there is no DH in basketball.

    Faried has lot of red flags. He is a horrendous FT shooter. He is useless outside the paint, and will have a 7 footer and a 6’9″ guy lurking in the paint virtually every night. His post defense is not great even at the NCAA level, against stronger, weaker players.

    I watched this DX video very closely and see some major flaws in his game that make me wonder whether he will ever be more than a 15mpg energy guy in the NBA. Maybe he becomes the next Rodman; maybe Shumpert becomes the next Dwyane Wade. Probably not, though, in both cases.

  130. The Formerly-Congenial Cock Jowles, #1 Gentleman

    Ted Nelson:
    JK47 -The thing is that Berri likes both the guys the Knicks picked. THCJ’s argument seems to be more that NCAA stats always translate to NBA and should be the only factor teams look at when picking, and if they don’t pick the guy with the highest PAWS40 total it was such a monumental mistake that it doesn’t matter who they did pick and we should all bitch about it for weeks.

    Yeah, that’s what I’m arguing. Whatever you say, gEnIuS.

    I’m arguing against the people who wanted Selby over Faried. And yes, Shumpert over Faried, too.

  131. nicos

    Z-man: Maybe he becomes the next Rodman; maybe Shumpert becomes the next Dwyane Wade. Probably not, though, in both cases.

    Yes, Rodman’s about as unique a player as I’ve seen in the last 30 years so I’d say the Faried= the next Rodman comparisons are so far-fetched as to be not worth even bringing up. Rodman wasn’t just the best rebounder of his era, he was top five in terms of man defense (and given his versatility you could argue he’s number one). Faried played in the middle of a zone his entire career and his man defense is a big question mark- if you’re willing to suggest he’s going to be anywhere near Rodman on defense, even hypothetically, then you might as well say Shumpert’s ceiling is Wade. Also, Rodman’s energy level was pretty singular; I wonder if Faried is going to keep up his level of activity when he has to body up to bigger players in the post for 25+ minutes a night. That said, I still would have picked Faried over Shumpert.

  132. Z-man

    I have no problem saying that Faried was the better pick. I have a problem with suggesting that it was a no-brainer. You can make solid arguments for and against both guys. In fact, you can throw Motiejunas, Harris and Singleton into the mix. In fact, you can do that all the way up to the #4 pick (dumb pick by Cleveland, I think, but who knows?) That was the nature of this draft, lots of middling prospects with low floors and high ceilings. Shumpert’s floor is lower than Faried’s but his ceiling is higher, especially on our team. I trust that Donnie and D’Antoni did their due diligence. They worked out both guys and Shumpert clearly blew them away. Imagine if they went with Faried and Shumpert turns out to be the steal of the draft. I just don’t get the uber-frustration with the pick.

  133. Z

    If Faried doesn’t become the next Rodman it will be because he wasn’t given enough playing time.

  134. ess-dog

    I wanted Faried too based on his body of work, but he could just as easily be the next Malik Rose as the next Dennis Rodman.

    Rose had the same TS, efg, reb%, and was also from a small school, also 6’7″. Clearly Faried looks to be better since he had roughly double the rebounds and blocks that Rose did, although Rodman didn’t get many steals/blocks in his career.

    Shumpert could easily be Larry friggin Hughes, or worse, Terrence Williams. It’s hard to find a precedent with similar stats that turned out to be good – Ronnie Brewer maybe. Actually, Mardy Collins’ junior year is eerily similar to Shumpert’s. Even Tony Allen shot .504 his sophmore year, Marcus Banks shot .514. Jay Williams is somewhat comparable (shorter) but he shot the three much better. Jamaal Tinsley? Jason Terry without the rebounds and more assists?

  135. Z-man

    Shumpert is not Mardy Collins, he’s faster, quicker, more explosive, jumps higher, etc. He could be Larry Hughes, which would be disappointing but not terrible (LH circa 2003-2005) for pick #17 in a weak draft. Tinsley is tiny and not nearly the athlete that IS is. He could be Tony Allen but jumps 8″ higher; I could live with that as a ceiling. He jumps 7″ higher than Terrence Williams and benches twice as many reps; Williams is a tweener between SG and SF, Shumpert is a tweener between PG and SG. Of the guys you mentioned, only Tindsley has PG skills and is not nearly the athlete.

    The comparison I like is Tyreke Evans, with better D and less O (Evans is woefully inefficient) but I could certainly live with that.

  136. flossy

    Terrence Williams is very talented and a phenomenal athlete. His problem is being a giant dumbass head-case. If Iman Shumpert = Terrence Williams with a better attitude, I’d say Donnie did pretty well with this pick.

  137. taggart4800

    THCJ, it is not that I don’t agree with the basis of any of your arguments or disagree that advanced metrics are an awful lot more reliable than simply saying one player is better than another. You are correct
    But what I will say is this, for the most part this blog site is popular to those that use it or just read it because they are a collection of like minded individuals who love basketball, the knicks and being enlightened when someone finds something statistically surprising. Vocal as you may be, I have often enjoyed you’re posts and they have prompted me to look at stats and be aware of things I previously wasn’t.
    However it takes a great deal of arrogance and ignorance to believe that you’re opinion is better than those of GM’s across the league (although I understand you would say it is numerical fact and not opinion). Secondly I find it astonishing that you are able to think that at least 90% of modern day GM’s DON’T use the stats that you champion!! When you look at the second round and the number of ‘high upside’ guys that slipped along way it is clearly evident that individuals like yourself are no longer pioneers but voices amongst a sizeable movement. My mind changed like the wind as to who I wanted, swayed by the different arguments made by yourself, other posters and DraftExpress. If it had been left tom me we would have picked Selby and Tyler with two 2nd picks, however I started the process loathing Selby and now recognise how terrible he would have been. At the end of the day I am humble enough to recognise that people who make evaluating Basketball talent their job are more informed than me. Lets not forget that their reputation is on the line for poor judgement as well as Donnie’s NBA legacy.
    So please I implore you to drop you to drop your maddening rhetoric or take your ‘microeconometric’ talents to a South Beach blog where you’re boundless arrogance will be welcomed with open arms.

  138. Degree Absolute

    I have come to like the Shumpert pick and it looks to me like his selection was a marriage between statistical-focused and tools-focused scouting (which is how it should always be). Advanced statistics suggest that he could be an above average player in the league while his athletic tools are clearly off the charts (18 reps at 185 with a 6’10” wingspan? he should be a freaking tight end). That combination is hard to pass up.

    I was not wild about the pick at first as a lot of reports about him say that he has a below average BBall IQ, but I hope that is more of a product of a constantly changing role/poor coaching than a “gotta get mine”, team-killing attitude. The interviews that I have seen and heard with him both pre and post draft point to the former.

    It should be to fun watch his development.

  139. bob cook

    Lots of scholarly comparisons of Shumpert to all sorts of other players. Those of us longer in the tooth will remember a tall, wonderfully athletic 2 guard who was not a big college stud and didn’t shoot too well but played lots of good ball for us: Michael Ray Richardson.

  140. Degree Absolute

    Laimbeer did go 65th overall and Harrellson’s last season looks comparable to Laimbeer’s college career averages. I’m am really looking forward to Josh Harrellson’s Combat Basketball.

  141. ess-dog

    Z-man,
    I’m not trying to hate on the guy but it’s really hard to find a successful guard that shot at or undat .400 in college. Clearly Shump is a phenom athlete which should manifest itself on defense immediately. But you can’t really compare Tyrekes freshman year to Iman’s junior. Maybe he’s a poor man’s Evans. I dont want to knock Shump, but if you look at Mardy’s stats, they are literally the same as Shump’s for the junior season.
    I mean, I think there is something to be said for translatable skills – Iman just has skills that translate better to the NBA, namely outstanding quickness, leaping ability and strength. I would like to hope a cross between a taller Jay Williams and Larry Hughes for him. But yeah, there are not a lot of physical comparables to him. A guard version of Wilson Chandler?

  142. Z-man

    ess,
    That sounds about right, if he has the right attitude and situation he should improve his efficiency same way WC did. He certainly sounds like he understands what he needs to do.

    My main point is that yes, he may be a bust, but he is no more likely to be a bust than any other player discussed at #17, and several taken above him. Seems like he will be a fun guy to root for. I also think playing behind Chauncey will help.

  143. GHenman

    bob cook: Lots of scholarly comparisons of Shumpert to all sorts of other players. Those of us longer in the tooth will remember a tall, wonderfully athletic 2 guard who was not a big college stud and didn’t shoot too well but played lots of good ball for us: Michael Ray Richardson.

    I was thinking Darrell Walker.

  144. citizen

    THCJ,

    Would you care to post a quick list of citations of Berri’s most important academic papers (in which he discusses his methodology) as well as the “comments” in journals publishing his work? And of course some of the “academic responses” of which you speak? (Not just the laudatory ones but the critical ones as well, which should go without speaking…) It would be very helpful for those of us that do understand econometrics and would like to take a look at the methodology, but unlike you, have not written any papers about Berri and don’t have the time to start from scratch at this point. It would certainly make the debate more lively no?

    Thanks.

  145. nicos

    GHenman: I was thinking Darrell Walker.

    That’s a great comp though I think Shumpert is a little bigger and a lot more athletic which will hopefully translate into a better career. But yeah, both excellent defense, solid rebounding, poor shooting, not really playmaking guards.

  146. art vandelay

    I don’t think saying so-and-so (in this cash Shumpert) had similar stats one particular NCAA season to another former player his same college season really serves to buttress an argument in favor of them being comparable, particularly when the players physically and stylistically are not likenesses of one another…I am sure if I were to go back and look at MJ’s stats one of his college seasons at UNC they would look startingly similar to some other also-ran player who clearly had little to nothing in common with him. I don’t have the exact details on Mardy Collins’ combine numbers (not even sure if they had invoked the combine back then already), but in his very brief stint in NY I remember him not be all that athletic and a little awkward as a PG, sort of in the way that Charlie Ward was actually (surprisingly) athletically awkward for someone who was also a Heisman award winner….no idea if Shumpert will pan out, but he looks like an athletic freak and on a completely different level athletically from that of Collins.

  147. Z-man

    Don’t like the Darrell Walker comparison, Walker really wasn’t anything like a point guard, had terrible shooting form.

  148. Z-man

    Micheal Ray Richardson? Hmmm..I’ll have to think about that one. He was more Westbrook-like than Evans-like, but might be a good comp.

  149. nicos

    Walker’s career assist per 36 was 6.3- Biilups’ is 6.2. He wasn’t a great point guard by any stretch but he definitely fell on the point side of the combo guard equation. Shumpert seems a lot closer to Walker in terms of distribution ability than he does to MMR who I think led the league in assists one year. His shooting form is much better than Walker’s and as I said he’s bigger and a lot more athletic and I hope he winds up being a whole lot better. But like Walker he’s coming in as a rangy, ball-hawking, low TS%, combo guard who probably shades more to the point than to the 2.

  150. Ben R

    Mardy Collins actually posted very good numbers at the combine. He had similar size and a 37.5″ vertical which isn’t off the charts like Shumpert’s 42 inches but is still very good. Looking at Collins’ RSB40 and his combine measurements suggest a player that easily has NBA athleticism.

    Overall the stats are very very similar but Shumpert has a couple things in his favor. The improving ft% suggest someone who has a developing jumpshot, Collins on the other hand shot 59.6%, the lowest in his college career, from the line his last year of college. Shumpert averaged 6.3 asts/40 his freshman season and 5.3/40 his sophmore which suggests that he can run the point when he needs to, Collins never averaged over 5/40.

    I wouldn’t be shocked if Shumpert is no more than a slightly more athletic Mardy Collins but I would say that is his floor. Mardy Collins was a good defender and had a couple flashes just never developed. It will all depend on whether Shumpert develops or not.

  151. Frank

    citizen:
    THCJ,
    Would you care to post a quick list of citations of Berri’s most important academic papers (in which he discusses his methodology) as well as the “comments” in journals publishing his work? And of course some of the “academic responses” of which you speak? (Not just the laudatory ones but the critical ones as well, which should go without speaking…)

    I would actually/seriously be interested in seeing these too. THCJ would you mind posting a few of them? I’ve googled for stuff like this but have trouble finding it.

    Re: Mardy Collins – one needed only to watch him play for 5 minutes to realize he was clearly a below-average NBA athlete. One only needs to watch Shumpert play for 5 minutes to realize that he’s a great athlete. Shumpert needs COACHING and to be on a team where he’s not the offensive focus. If anything, D’Antoni+staff are good at offensive coaching, and he definitely won’t be the offensive focus. Would be interesting to see his stats as a spot-up jump shooter, since my hope would be the only shots he would take would be those + transition hoops + drives to the hoop. Leave the pull-ups and isos to the big boys.

    Re: Josh Harrellson – my lord do his advanced stats look prettier than he does. Check out this link –

    http://blogs.courier-journal.com/ericcrawford/2011/02/28/mr-efficiency-uk-version-josh-harrellson/

    which leads to this link:

    http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Kentucky

    At the bottom are Harrellson’s numbers. His ORtg was 7th in the nation at over 130. He’s also an offensive rebounding monster. If that can even partially carry over to the pros, and if he can stay on the floor for 10-15 min/game, he could be very valuable. His 15% body fat tells me he needs to do lots of running this summer.

  152. James

    I see some similarities between Shumpert and Collins as well with the big difference being Shumpert has showed some semblance of shooting ability with his free throws that Collins never did. Looking at Shumpert’s shot, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong it in terms of balance or release. He just tends to clank them but biggest of all in my opinion, it’s been the tough shot selection that have affected his numbers the most. The advent of the stepback jumper has been to his detriment. He tries to be too much of a stylish shooter. The kinds of shots he took are difficult for anyone to hit at a high percentage but he also didn’t balance them by attacking the rim.

    As far as skills and size, there really isn’t a big difference between Shumpert and Alec Burks. Both are athletic, 6’5-6’6 guards with long arms, who can handle and pass but whose outside shots are suspect. Whereas Shumpert shot in the high 30s to low 40s from the field, Burks shot a very good percentage because he didn’t settle for tough outside jumpers time after time like Shumpert did but also attacked the basket and got a boatload of baskets in transition.

    The lack of drives for a guy with his athleticism and handle is what mystified me most. He should have been a penetrating force in college. I suppose it’s possible he puts it all together in the nba because he has the tools. The stroke is good, the ballhandling is very good, the first step is fast, the explosiveness is there; it’s not farfetched to see him one day putting it all together and becoming a core player. It seems more likely that he could be a Ronnie Brewer type player, a defensive role player but one who handles the ball better and contributes with some playmaking.

  153. Truitt

    Just for the record, I wanted Marshon Brooks…I guess I was alone though. By the end of the year, the knicks could not play Billups and Fields at the same time because neither could stay in front of a pg (and Fields’ shooting slumped). I thought they needed a SG who could play some PG (or at least defend PGs) just as much as they needed a paint-clogging-rebound-devouring Goliath.

    When I when I saw Brooks’ combine measurements I thought that his athleticism and length would help him cover up for Chauncey’s age. I thought that his wet shot and fearlessness would make him a perfect fit for SSOL. Needless to say, I was very disappointed when we drafted Shumpert (because of last years Favors over Cousins rationale and his poor shooting ability).

    Since then, I have been talking myself into Shumpert & found some solace in that he reminds me quite a bit of Billups’s old teammate, Rodney Stuckey. Shumpert is .5″ taller, has 2″ more wingspan, with about the same speed, but stronger and can leap about half a foot higher. Neither were great shooters or pure point guards. Stuckey out of college gets the edge on offense, but Shumpert has it with D.

    While Stuckey still has trouble with his outside shot; he is a decent player, he even looks like a starting PG some nights. Stuckey was a great compliment to Billups in Detroit. I would take him on the Knicks if he was offered. If Shumpert’s game can grow under Billups and D’antoni into something resembling Stuckey’s he will be a great pick considering the options available. If he can do better, he will probably be considered the steal of the draft. If he can’t we will still have a super athletic 2 who can help play d and throw down some crazy dunks in garbage time.

  154. Ted Nelson

    Ben R: I wouldn’t be shocked if Shumpert is no more than a slightly more athletic Mardy Collins but I would say that is his floor.

    I think that’s a fair point. And I’ll take that as a “worst case” from #17.

    Truitt: Just for the record, I wanted Marshon Brooks…I guess I was alone though.

    I think he looks like a solid-ish prospect. He wasn’t my first choice, but I wouldn’t have been upset if the Knicks drafted him.

    ess-dog: I wanted Faried too based on his body of work, but he could just as easily be the next Malik Rose as the next Dennis Rodman.

    Or the next Lasme or the next Dorsey or the next Balkman or the next… Come on ess-dog, you’re arbitrarily picking and choosing strong comparisons for Faried and weak ones for Shumpert. This is why I’m not a big fan of comparisons. It’s fun to compare them, but I don’t know if it’s in anyway useful. Good players are good players regardless of who they’re compared to, and same for bad players. Shumpert definitely has the skills to be good, though like any pick he could be bad.

    ess-dog: Shumpert could easily be Larry friggin Hughes

    Is that a problem? Shumpert has like 40 lbs on Hughes, so I don’t think it’s a perfect comparison anyway. Hughes was an alright player, though. The mistake was paying him so much $. Drafting him #17 wouldn’t have been a problem. And like Stuckey, Hughes is a guy who didn’t reach his own potential. Shumpert might never reach his, but he might.

Comments are closed.